Schorr
The cruods of Christendom.
i
kansas city •• public library
City.
Books will be issued only
on presentation of library card,
Please report lost cards and
change of residinc« promptly.
Card holders are responsible fw
(')ll books, r«cirds,
or other library materials
checked out on their cards,
CREEDS OF CHRISTEN DOM.
tjniliolini tfrrlrsiir ftittenjafe.
THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM,
WITH
A HISTORY AND ORITK'AL NOTES.
BY
PHILIP RrilAFK, D.D., LL.D.,
or mm,!*'*!. HTKIUTUUK IN taw UNION THKOUMUCAI* KKMXKARY, H. T,
TllltKK VOLUMKti.
SIXTH 1-iUtTluN HI-AMU) \M> KNIiVHt*Kt>,
THE U1KTORY OK C
MKW YOllK ANO LONDON:
UAUTKU ft HKOTHKUS, r T ISI. 1 * It K II H,
TttK Curfew tt* CttHfHTKMltOM
O»jtyn«ht, IS77, by ltjip|j«*r A Mr«i(ttf*n
Copyright, \\m. Will, hy h»vtit H
Ihrintwl tn the t'mt<Mt Ktutrn ul Anirnr»
TO
Zf-W MhiOHKl* AM) RKLOVRI) VOLIBAQVBB
IN TUX UNION THKOUKMCAI, HKMINAKY,
lUv. WILLIAM ADAMS, IU>.t LLT),,
JUv. IIBNttV U. SMITH, I >.!>., LLI).f
UKV. ROSWKLL I). HITOIK^OCK, I ),!>,, LLIX,
lUv. WILLIAM 0. T. SHBIH), !>.!)., LLIX,
IUv.<JK<Hi«SK L. I'HKNTISH, D.IX,
KKV, CHARLES A, BKIUOS* I)J).,
TI1IH WOHK 18
TUB AUTHOB.
PREFACE.
A 'symbolical library' that contains the creeds and confessions
of all Christian denominations fills a vacuum in theological and
historical literature. It is surprising that it has not been supplied
long ago. Sectarian exclusiveness or doctrinal indiffcrentism may
have prevented it. Other symbolical collections are confined to
particular denominations and periods. In this work the reader
will find the authentic material for the study of Comparative The-
ology— Symbolics, Polemics, and Ironies. In a country like ours,
where people of all creeds meet in daily contact, this study ought
to command more attention than it has hitherto received.
The First Volume has expanded into a doctrinal history of the
Church, so far as it is embodied in public standards of faith. The
most important and fully developed symbolical systems — the Vat-
ican Romanism, the Luthorantam of the Formula of Concord, and
the Calvinism of the Westminster standards — have been subjected
to a critical analysis. The author has endeavored to combine the
favidtixw kv bybiry and the hyaTryv to AX^fy, and to be mindful
of the golden motto, In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibm
caritas. Honest and earnest controversy, conducted in a Christian
and catholic spirit, promotes true and lasting union. Polemics looks
to Irenics — the aim of war is peace.
The Second Volume contains the Scripture Confessions, the ante-
Nioono Rules of Faith, the Oecumenical, the Greek, and the Latin
Creeds, from the Confession of Peter down to the Vatican Decrees.
It includes also the best Russian Catechism and the recent Old
Catholic Union Propositions of the Bonn Conferences.
The Third Volume is devoted to the Lutheran, Anglican, Calvin-
istic, and the later Protestant Confessions of Faith. The documents
of the Third Part (pp. 707-876) have never been collected before.
Vi PREFACE.
The creeds and confessions are given in the original language**
from the bo«t editions, and are accompanied by translation)* for tlu»
convenience of the English reader,1
While these volumes were passing through the press several
learned treatises on the ancient creeds by Luniby, Swaiiwon, Hurt,
Caspari, and others have appeared, though not too late to be no-
ticed in the final revision. The literature has been brought down
to the close of 1876. I trust that nothing of importance has es-
caped my attention.
I take pleasure in acknowledging my obligation to fiovoral dis-
tinguished divines, in America and England, for valuable informa-
tion concerning the denominations to which they belong, and for
several contributions, which appear under the writers' names,2 In
a history of conflicting creeds it is wise to consult representative
men as well as books, in order to secure strict accuracy and im-
partiality, which are the cardinal virtues of a historian.
May this repository of creeds and confessions promote a better
understanding among the Churches of Christ. The divisions of
Christendom bring to light the various aspects and phases of re-
vealed truth, and will be overruled at last for a deepen* and richer
harmony, of which Christ is the key-note. In him and by him all
problems of theology and history will be solved. The nearer be-
lievers of different creeds approach the Christological centre, the
better they will understand and love each other.
P. 8.
HOUSE, $EW YORK,
D&ember, 1876.
1 1 have used, e, g., the facsimile of the oldest MS, of tho Athanasmn Omul from the
'Utrecht "Psalter;* the ed. princeps of the Lutheran Ooncordia (formerly in th« P<«HCW-
sion of Dr. Meyer, the well-known commentator) ; the GV;/«a et tij/ntuytm CVw/attfoMw/i,
ed. 1654; a copy of the Ilarmonia Con/minnuM, once owned by Priwe {'unimir of tho
Palatinate, who suggested it; the oldest editions of tho Westminster OonfcHKicm and Cate-
chisms, of the Savoy Declaration, etc.
3 The Rev. Drs. Jo8. Angus, W. W. Andrews, Chas. A, Hriggfi, J, R. Brown, K W. Oilman,
G. Haven, A. A. Hodge, Alex. P. Mitchell, 15. P. Morris, OIwH. i*. Kruuth, J. H. Lttmby,
G. I). Matthews, H. Osgood, K. von Schweinitss, II. B, Smith, John Stoughton, K. A. Wai*h*
burn, W. K. Williams. Bee Vol. I. pp. COO, 81 1, 839, OU ; Vol. III. pp. a, 738, 777, 700.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
TIIK call for a new edition of this work in less than a year after its
publication is an agreeable surprise to the author, and fills him with
gratitude to the reading public and the many reviewers, known and
unknown, who have so kindly and favorably noticed it in American
and foreign periodicals and in private letters. One of the foremost
divines of Germany (Dr. Dorner, in the Jahrbiieher fur Deutsche
Theologie, 1877, p. 682) expresses a surprise that the idea of such an
oecumenical collection of Christian Creeds should have originated in
America, where the Church is divided into so many rival denomina-
tions ; but he adds also as an explanation that this division creates a
desire for unity and co-operation, and a mutual courtesy and kindness
unknown among the contending parties arid schools under the same
roof of state -churches, where outward uniformity is maintained at
the expense of inward peace and harmony.
The changes in this edition are very few. The literature in the
first volume is brought down to the present date, and at the close of
the second volume a fac-sitnile of the oldest MSS. of the Athanasian
Creed and the Apostles' Creed is added.
P.S.
Nw YOIIK, April, 1878.
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.
Tins edition differs from the second in the following particulars:
1. In the first volume several errors have been corrected (e.g., in the
statistical table, p. 818), and a list of new works inserted on p. xiv.
2, In the third volume a translation of the Second Helvetic Confes-
sion has been added, pp. 831 sqq,
P.S.
N»w YORK, December, 1880.
PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION.
THHJ call for a fourth edition of this work has made it my duty to
give the first volume once more a thorough revision and to bring the
literature down to the latest date. In this I have been aided by my
young friend, the Rev. Samuel M. Jackson, one of the assistant edi-
tors of my "Religious Encyclopedia." The additions which could
not be conveniently made in the plates have beeu printed separately
after the Table of Contents, pp. xiv-xvii.
The second and third volumes, which embrace the symbolical docu-
ments, remain unchanged, except that at the end of the third volume
the new Congregational Creed of 1883 has been added.
Creeds will live as long as faith survives, with the duty to confer
our faith before men. By and by we shall reach, through the (hxkudi
of Christendom, the one comprehensive, harmonious Creed of Christ*
P. 8,
N»w YORK, May, 1SS4.
THE fifth edition was a reprint of the fourth, without any changes.
PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION.
SINCE the appearance of the Creeds of Christendom, 1877, no work has
been issued competing with it in scope and comprehensiveness. The
valuable collection of W. W. Walker, The Creeds and Platforms of Con-
gregationalimi, 1893, and W. J. McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith,
1911, are limited to separate Protestant bodies. The extensive collec-
tion of Karl Mxiller, 1903, is confined to the creeds and catechisms of
the Reformed Churches. Professor W. A. Curtis of the University of
Edinburgh, in his History of the Creeds and Confessions of Faith in
Christendom and Beyond, gives the contents of creeds and an account of
their origins, not their texts. C. Fabrieius, in his Corpus confessionum,
etc., 1928, sqq., proposes in connexion with colaborers to furnish not
only the texts of the Christian creeds, but also the texts of hymns,
liturgies, books of discipline, and other documents bearing on Christian
doctrine, worehip, and practice. For example, 250 pages of Volume I
are devoted to hymns, and 250 pages to "The Doctrines and Discipline
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1924."
The new material of the present edition is the following:
Volume L Additions to the literature; notices of the Church of the
Disciples and the Universalist and Unitarian Churches; and changes and
additions, as, for example, on the primitive creeds and the Russian
Church.
Volume II. In the fourth edition Dr. Schaff, in view of the new
importance given in Canon Law to papal utterances on doctrine and
morals, added one of the important encyclicals of Leo XIII., who was
then living. To this encyclical have been added bulls on the Church,
by Boniface VIIL, 1302, Anglican Orders, by Loo XIII., 1896, "Ameri-
canism" and "Modernism" by Pius X., 1907-10, and Pius XL's en-
cyclical on Church Union, 1928.
Volume III. Additions giving Recent Confessional Declarations and
Terms of Union between Church organizations. The material on the
latter subject, so closely akin to the general topic of the book, makes it
X PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION.
quite probable that Dr. Philip Schaff, in view of his pronounced attitude
on Church fellowship and union, would have included it, were he himself
preparing this edition of the Creeds of Christendom.
DAVID S* SCHAFF.
UNION THEOLOGICAL SBMINABT
N»w YORK, Jarvuary, 1931
TABLE OF CONTENTS,
(VOL. 1)
HISTORY OF THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
FIRST CHAPTER.
ON CREEDS IN GENERAL.
PAGH
§ 1. NAME AND DEFINITION 3
§ 2. ORIGIN OF CBEEDS 4
§ 3. AUTHORITY OF CREEDS 7
§ 4. VALUE AND USE OF CREEDS 8
§ 5. CLASSIFICATION OF CJREEDS 9
SECOND CHAPTER.
THE (ECUMENICAL CREEDS.
§ 6. GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE (ECUMENICAL CREEDS .... 12
§ 7. THE APOSTLES' CREED 14
§ 8. THE NICENE CKEED 24
§ 9. THE CREED OF CTIALCEDON 29
§10. THE ATII AN ASIAN CBEED 34
THIRD CHAPTER.
THE CREEDS OF THE GREEK CHURCH.
I II. THE SEVEN (ECUMENICAL COUNCILS 43
§12. THE CONFESSIONS OF GENNADIUS, A.D. 1453 46
g 13. THE ANSWERS OF THE PATRIARCH JEREMIAH TO THE LUTHER-
ANS, A.D. 1576 50
g 14. THE CONFESSION OF METROPHANEH CRITOPULUS, A.D. 1625 . 52
§ 15. THE CONFESSION OF CYRIL LUCAR, A.IX 1631 54
3 16. THE ORTHODOX CONFESSION OF MOGILAS, A.D. 1643 .... 58
Xil TABLK <>!<' CONTKNTH.
TAgt
§ 17. THE SYNOD OF JKUVSALKM, ANI> TIIK CONKKSSION OK Dosi
TIIKUS, A.I). 1072 ............... 01
§ 18. TUK SYNODS OF CONSTANTINOPLE, A.I). 1()7'J and U>91. , . 07
§ 19. TUK DOCTRINAL STANDARDS OK TUK RUSSO-(IKKKK Curucn . 08
§ 20, ANGLO-CATHOLIC CORRESPONDENCE WITH TUK RI'SSO-(*UI>.KK
CHURCH .................. 7-1
§ 21. THE EASTERN SECTS: NESTORIANS, JACOBITES, OOITS, AUMK-
NIANS ............. ..,,,78
FOURTH CHAPTER
THE CREEDS OF THE ROMAN C
§ 22, CATHOLICISM AND ROMANISM ............ Ha
§ 23. STANDARD EXPOSITIONS OF TUK ROMAN CATHOLIC SYKTKM . H6
§ 24. TUB CANONS AND DKOUEKK OF TUK COUNCIL OF TKKNT,
A.IX 15G3 .................. iH)
g 25. TlIB PttOFKSSION OF THE TlUDKNTINK FAITH, A. I). 1504 * . MJ
§ 26. TUK ROMAN CATECHISM, A.I), 1500 .......... 100
§ 27. TIIK PAPAL BULLS AGAINST TIIM JANSKMISTS, A. P. HK5:t, I7ia. HW
NOTK ON THK Ol/D CATHOLICH IN IIOLI.ANt), 107.
§ 28. TUB PAPAL DBFINITION OF TIIM IMMACULATK CONCKPTION OK
TUB VIKGIN MAKY, A.D. 1854 .......... lo,*
§ 29. TlIE AlUJUMKNT FOK TUB IMMACULATE CONCEPTION . . . I1H
§ 30. TUB PAPAL SYLLABUS, A.D. 1S04 .......... I'JH
§ 31. TUB VATICAN COUNCIL, A.I). 1870 .......... i;)4
§ 32. TUB VATICAN DBOUKKS. TUB CONSTITUTION ON TIIK CATH-
OLIC FAITH ................. 14?
§ 33. TUB VATICAN DBOUKEB, CONTINUED. TIIK PAPAL INFALLIUIL-
ITY DKCKUB ................. i;»o
§ 34. PAPAL INFALLIBILITY EXPLAINED, AND TBSTKD BY SCUIPTUUK
AND TRADITION ................ jo:>
§ 35. TUB LITURGICAL STANDARDS 01^ TUB ROMAN CIIUIWJH . . .18!)
§ 36. THM OLD CATHOLICS ............... 191
FIFTH CHAPTER
THU CREEDS OF THE EVANGELICAL PROTESTANT CHURCHES,
§ 37. TUB REFORMATION. PROTESTANTISM AND ROM ANISIC . . . aosj
§ ,38. THE EVANGELICAL CONFESSIONS OB* FAITH ....... t<jO$*
§ 39. TlIE LXTTIIERAN AND REFORMED CONFESSIONS ...... ^ 1 J
TABLE OF CONTENTS. Xlll
SIXTH CHAPTER.
THE CREEDS OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH.
PAOX
§ 40. TlIK LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS 220
§ 41. TUB AIKJKIWKU CONFESSION, A.D. 1530 225
§ 42. TUB APOLOGY OF THE AUGSIJURG CONFESSION, A.D. 1530 . 243
§ 43. LUTHKR'S CATECHISMS, A.D. 1529 245
§ 44. THE ARTICLES OF SMALCALD, A.D. 1537 253
§ 45. THE FORMULA OF CONCORD, A.D. 1577 258
§ 46. THE FORMULA OF CONCORD, CONCLUDED 312
§ 47. SUPERSEDED LUTHERAN SYMBOLS. THE SAXON CONFESSION,
AND THE WfrRTKMBKRG CONFESSION, A.D. 1551 .... 340
§ 48. THE SAXON VISITATION ARTICLES, A.D. 1592 345
§ 49. AN ABORTIVE SYMBOL AGAINST SYNCRETISM, A.D. 1655. . . 349
SEVENTH CHAPTER
THE CREEDS OF THE EVANGELICAL REFORMED CHURCHES.
§ 50. THE REFORMED CONFESSIONS 354
L Itef owned Confess/ions of Switzerland.
§ 51. ZWINGLIAN CONFESSIONS. THE SIXTY-SEVEN ARTICLES, Tim
TEN THESES OF BERNE. THE CONFESSION TO CHARLES V.
THE CONFESSION TO FRANCIS I, A.D. 1523-1531 .... 360
§ 52. ZWINOLI'S DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES 309
§ 53. TUB CONFESSION OF BASLE, A.D. 1534 385
§ 54. THE FIRST HELVETIC CONFESSION, A.D. ]536 388
§ 55. THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION, A.D. 1566 390
§ 56. JOHN CALVIN. His LIFE AND CHARACTER ....... 421
§ 57. CALVIN'S WORK. ITis THEOLOGY AND DISCIPLINE .... 444
§ 58. THE CATECHISM OF GENEVA, A.D. 1541 467
§ 59, THE ZURICH CONSENSUS, A.D. 1549 471
§ 60. THE GENEVA CONSENSUS, A.D. 1552 474
§ 61. THE HELVETIC CONSENSUS FORMULA, A.D. 1675 477
IL Reformed Confessions of France and the Netherlands.
§ 62. THE GALLIOAN CONFESSION, A.D. 1559 490
§ 63. THE FRENCH DECLARATION OF FAITH, A.D. 1872 498
§ 64. THE BELUIO CONFESSION, A.D. 1561 502
XIV TABLE OF CONTENTS.
§ 65. THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY AND THK SYNOD OK DORT, A.D.
1604-1019 .................. 508
§ 66. THE REMONSTRANCE, A.IX 1010 ........... MO
§ 67. THE CANONS OF DORT, A.D. 1010 .......... 510
IIL The Reformed Confessions of Germany.
§ 68. THE TKTRAPOUTAN CONFESSION, A.I). 1530 ....... 524
§ 69. THE HKIDKLBKRU CATKCHISM, AJ). 1503. .*,*.«. 529
§ 70. THE BRANDKNHURU CONFESSIONS .......... 554
THK CONFESSION OF $IGIHMUNI> (HIM), *>55.
THK COLLOQUY AT Luiwsu; (1031), fif»8.
THK DEOLAIUTION OF THOHN (UHf>), 500.
§ 71. THE MINOR GERMAN REFORMED CONFESSIONS ...... 503
. The Reformed Confessions o/Jtohcmia, Poland, and JFfuiiffary.
§ 72. THE BOHEMIAN BRETHREN AND THK WALDKNSKS BEFOBB THE
REFORMATION ............... * , 505
§ 73. THE BOHEMIAN CONFESSIONS AFTER THE REFORMATION, A.1).
1535 AND 1575 ................ 570
§ 74. THE REFORMATION IN POLAND AND THE CONSENSUS OF SKN-
DOMIR, A.D. 1570 ............... 581
§ 75. THE REFORMATION IN HUNGARY AND THK CONFESSION OF
. 1557 .............. 580
V. The Anglican Articles of JReligion.
§ 76. THE ENGLISH REFORMATION ............ 502
§ 77. THE DOCTRINAL POSITION OF TUB ANGLICAN CHURCH AND HER
RELATION TO OTHER CHURCHES .......... 598
§ 78. THE DOCTRINAL FORMULARIES OF HENRY VIII ...... 611
§ 79. THE EDWARDINE ARTICLES, A.D. 1553 ......... 613
§ 80. THE ELIZABETHAN ARTICLES, A.D. 1563 AND 1571 ..... 015
§ 81. INTERPRETATION OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES ..... 622
§ 82. REVISION OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES BY THE PUOTBHT-
ANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IBT THE UNITED STATES OF AMER-
ICA, A.D. 1801 ................. 650
§ 83. THE ANGLICAN CATECHISMS, A.D. 1540 AND 1662 ..... 654
§ 84. THE LAMBETH ARTICLES, A.D. 1595 ........ , . 058
§ 85. THE IRISH ARTICLES, A.D. 1615 ........... 662
§ 86, THE ARTICLES OF THE REFORMED EPISCOPAL CHURCH, A.D.
. , 665
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XV
VL The Presbyterian Confessions of Scotland.
PACJB
§ 87. THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND 669
§ 88. JOHN KNOX 673
§ 8<). THE SCOTCH CONFESSION, A.D. ir>co 680
§ oo. THE SCOTCH COVENANTS AND THE SCOTCH KIRK .... 685
§ 91. THE SCOTCH CATECHISMS 696
VII. The Westminster Standards.
§ <)2. THE PURITAN CONFLICT 701
§ 93. THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY 727
§ 94. THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION 753
§ 95. ANALYSIS OF THE CONFESSION 760
§ 96. THE WESTMINSTER CATECHISMS 783
§ 97. CRITICISM OF THE WESTMINSTER SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE . . 788
§ 98. THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS IN AMERICA 804
§ 99. THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS AMONG THE CUMBERLAND
PRESBYTERIANS 813
EIGHTH CHAPTER.
THE CREEDS OF MODERN EVANGELICAL DENOMINATIONS.
§ 100. GENERAL SURVEY 817
§ 101. THE CONGREGATIONALISMS 820
§ 102. ENGLISH CONGREGATIONAL CREEDS 829
§ 103, AMERICAN CONGREGATIONAL CREEDS 835
§ 104. ANABAPTISTS AND MENNONITES 840
§ 105. THE CALVINISTIC BAPTISTS 844
§ 106. THE ARMINIAN BAPTISTS 856
§ 107. THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS (QUAKERS) 859
§ 108. THE MORAVIANS 874
§ 109. METHODISM 882
§ 110. METHODIST CREEDS 890
§ in. ARMINIAN METHODISM 893
§ 112. CALVINISTIC METHODISM 901
§ 113. THE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH (IRVINGITES) .... 905
§ 114. THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE 915
§ 115. THE CONSENSUS AND DISSENSUS OF CREEDS 919
§ 116. THE DISCIPLEB OF CHRIST 930
§ 117. THE UNIVERSALISTS 933
§ 118. THE UNITARIANS 954
ADDITIONS TO THE LITERATURE
Jfrt Oencral
KATTBNUUHCII: Lehrbtteh der vervlcichcndcn (!ttnfeMi»n*kundi; Frrib., 1KM2.— GUMMOU: Chriitt,
and Conff., Kw$l. traiiB., N, Y., 181)4. — CAIXOWH: Origin and Revebiiiment <tf Crredtt, London, 1K90.
S. Ci. ChuoBN: The (Jhrwt. Creed and the, CVwto of Christendom, N. Y,, 1800.— HKHINM: dreed and the
Creed* t their Function in Keliyion, London, 1011.— W. A. OUUTIH: Hint, of tlrttd* awl (hnff. ttf Faith
in Christendom and Beyond, Aberdeen, 101 1. An elaboration uf the author** nrt,, "Confwmioiuti" in
Kno. of Hoi. and lOthies; ineludoB tho principles of Mormonism, Chrintian Hoionce mid Tointoy. Hiwu'tf :
Art., "Creeds," in Kino. Brit., 14th ed. — The work* on Nymlwlict of LOOKH, nnd Humcm, N. Y., 1014.
— HAHB: I/dlwots of the, Cvntrwerw with Rome, 2 vol«., London, 1000, trans, from Hn*w»'n 1'vlemik,
ed. of 1000. — PUTT: Qrundriss dvr tfymbokn, 7th oil., by Victor Bdwltze* Krl., 1021, — MULKUT: K'on-
ftwwnskimtle., ClicpHow, 1020.
Cottfctiom of Creeds
H/UIN, 3rd <«d. enlarged, 1«S97. — C, I<'Aiwic;nw, prof, in Itorliu, C«r^u« confe#*ionum, 7)tV ttrkmni-
nune dux Chrhtenthwn*. Sammluny ffrundlcganddr Urfawden aus nllon Kirchvn dtr (}roenwtrtt Brrtin,
102H H(i<i. — J. T. MCwJUtt: Dw symb, livelier dear ev, tuth. Kirch«, deutech und ititein., 12th <»d., 102H, -
E. F. KAHL Mttu,K»: Die ftcktnntwbwhriftcn d?r reform, Kirchv, Tx>ip,, I«08.— For papal <Uicrt'<'n:
Ada sedis sanctae, Homo. — MIRUT: Qudlcn zur Gvach. des Papattums und deti rtim. Katholizismuti, 4th
od., 1024.— DENKIN<IKR: Knchiridinn sumholorwri d dtfinitionum, (jitac. a condltin <urum, tt «utnmi*
pontificibus cmanarunt, 17th od. by Umbarg, 1028.
Pags 12.
A. JB. TiuitN: Facsimiles of the Creeds, etc., London, 1H09; Introd. to th« Crcod» and 7V fitutn, Lami(m»
1001. — MoiiTiMUit: r/*« Creeds, App., JVic., Athanas., London, 1002,— -A. HKKIIKHO: Katechi«mus dfr
Vrchriatenh&it, 1903. — TuBNmi: //it»^. and C/«; «/ Creedt in th& Early (Jenturict <>/ th« Church, Loiulou*
1006,— Bp. K. C, S. GIUSON: TAe Three Creeds, Oxf., 100S.— WMTJSKU and WICX/TO: A'wr. 2nd «l. V,»
676-600.— LOOM: Symbolik, pp, 1-70.— BUWOH: 7Vu-«£. Hymbolfa, pp. 34-121.— F, J. HAIXHX'X: 7V<«
//zsi. of Creeds, Ayp., Nic,, and Athana*., London, 10JJO, pp. 248.
Page 14.
Tho Apostles Creed: KATTBNIWBCH: Da6 apostol, Ni/mtwl, 2 vote,, T^iip«io, lK()4-ltKX).— ZAHN: IM*
apostol. Symbol, Erl., 1803, transl. by Burn from 2nd cd., London, ISML—UAKNACK, in Horxog Kiu\, I
741-55 and separately in JBiigl. 1001.— II. B. SWJBTB: 7Vte a pp. Creed* Its lldaiwn tt> /Vt'm» CMr&rtf-
, Canibr., 1804. — KUNZK: Giaubcnsrcgd, hi. Schrift und TaufbcktnrUnis*, Lciimio, 1H09; /Ja«
Z. Glaufonabekewitniwi und das N. T,, Berlin, 101 1, En«I. trans, by Clilmorts N. Y., 1012,—
B: BMiothek dee %ntfcoJ<?, Mainz, 1001.-— A. C. McGifirovr: The j4/>/>, (.Vwl. /<« Oriyirt,
JF*wpoM, etc., N. Y., 1002.— Bp. A. MAcDoNAM) (It, C,) : The App, Creed. A Vindication of fa ApM.
Authority, 1903, 2nd od., London, 1025. — The App, Creed, Quwtfan* of Fatih> inioturm by UKNNKY,
MAKGUS DODS, LINDSAY, oto., London, 1904. — Popular troatxtuuitii by Canon JtaucuiNo, 100(J; W. H.
HiaKAiiDa, N, Y., 1006; BAIIUT, N. Y., 1912; Bp, BMI.L, 1917, 1010; MCFADYBN, 1027; IL 1>. SIXJAN,
K. Y., 1930.— Also BAiiDKNHKWiuit: Oeach. der aUchr, Lit,, 2nd cd., 1, 82-00.
Page 24.
The Nioono Croed: HOET: Two Dissertations on the Constan. Creed, London, 1870.— LUH: The When*
Creed, 1807. — KUNZM: Das nic.-konstant. Symbol, Lcipsio, 1898. — HAKNAOK, in Iior*og Kno, XI,, 12-
27, and ScHAFV-HMtzoa, III, 256-200. — Bp. HEADLAM: The Nic. Creed. Noting (UfTer<*ruH»« b<'tw<u*n
tho R/om. add Angl. Churches.
Pa0«* 43-08,
M Bekcnntnisse und wichtigaten Glaulenazeugnisse der griech.-oricntal. Kirche (th<^auro» tt^a ortho-
doxias) ed.f by MICHALCBBOU, with Introd. by Mauok, l^oipaio, 1904. Include «m«l» and dwmm of
the first seven cooum. councils. — LOOFS: Symbolik, pp. 77-181. — ADKNIOY: The Or. and flast, CAwrrAo*,
N. Y., 1908. — FOBTKSCUK (It. C.): The Orthod. &a$t. Church, last od., London, 1010.— LANCIMVOMD-
JAMBB: Diet, of the East. Orthod, Church, London, 1923.— Tho art. in Horaog, " Uwmadluii H/* "Jwo-
im'as," "LukariB," oto.— BIRKBISCB:: The Russ> and Engl. Churches, during the latt fifty years, London,
1895,— Fjafcua: Links in the Chain of Russ, Ch. Hist,, London, 1918.
Page 69.
BONBWKTSOH: Kirchenyesch. Russians, Leipsic, 1923.— RKYBXTEN: Story of the Rut8. Church, London,
1924.— SPINKA (prof, in Chicago Theol. Seminary): The Church and the Rues, Revolution, N, Y., 1927,
ADDITIONS TO THE LITERATURE. XVU
— HECK Kit (student of Prow and Union Thcol. Seminaries and Prof, of Thcol., Moscow): Rel. under
the Hornets, N. Y., 1027; Soviet Russia in the Second Decade, 1028. — KMIIAUDT: KeL in Soviet Russia,
Milwaukee, 15)20.— M. HINDUS (b. in Kuwmi): Ilunuinitu Uprooted, N. Y., 1929. — BATHHLL: Soviet
Rule, in Russia, N. Y., 1930.— The Engl. White Paper, Au«. 12, 1030, which gives a trans, of Soviet
regulations "respecting religion in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."
Page 83.
A. STitAUB (prof, at Innsbruck): de Ecclcsia, 2 vols., Innsbr., 1012. — HYAN and MILLAR: The State
and the Church, N. Y., 1002, — K. UBXLJDR (cx-Cath., prof, in Marburg): Dcr Katholizismus, seine Idee
und wine Erscheinunff, Munich, 1023. — I)QiJ,iN<a«;n-ItKnHCJir: tidhstbioyraphie des Kard. Bellarmin,
with iiotos, 1887. — CAKD. OntwoNS, d. 1021: The Faith of Our Fathers, 1875. — The works and biogra-
phio.8 of Card. Newman, d. 1800, and Card. Manning, d. 1S02. — 1). S. SGIIAFP: Our Fathers' Faith and
Ours, N. Y.? 1028.
Payc, 01.
BUCJKLEY, 2 vols., 1S.12, gives the Reformatory decisions of the council as well as the Decrees and
Canons. — DONOVAN: I'rofession and Catechism of the C. of Trent, 1020 and since. — MUUUT: Quelien zur
Oasch. <fo« Papsttums. Gives large excerpts from tho Tridontiuo standards. — FKOUMD: Lecture* on the
C. of Trent, 1806. — PABTOU: Qesch. der Pdpste, vol. vii. — The Ch. Histories of HEitaHNitOTHKB-KiHSCii,
KUNK, etc.
Page 134.
MIRBT, pp. 456-466.— SHOTWBLL-LOOMIB: The, See of St. Peter. Trans, of patristic documents,
N. Y., 1927.— {JRANDBIIATH, S.J.: Ocsch. dcs Vat. JKomik, od. by Kirch, 3 vols., Freib. in Brois., 1003.
— Dfiur^XNOXifr-FuiBDXtzciz: Das Papsttumt 1802. — LOUD ACTON: The Vatican Council in 4t Freedom of
Thought."— PAHTOU: Hist, of the Popes, vol. x. for Sixtus V.'a cd. of tho Vulgate. — CARD. GIBBONS
(a member of tho council): Retrospect of Fifty Years, 2 vols., 1006. — The biographies of Manning by
FxmuBXii*, 2 volo., 1HOO; Kettelor by Pifuw, 3 vols., Main«, 1HOO; NEWMAN by Ward, 4 vols., 1012. —
STMAXTB: do Kcclesia, vol. ii., 358-304. — NIELSEN: The Papacy in the l!Hh Cent., vol. ii., pp. 200-374. —
KOCH: Cyprian und das r&m, Primatt 1030, — SCHNITZKB: Hat Jesus das Papstthum gestiftetf and Das
Papstthum keine fttiftunu Jesus, 1010. — COXTNT VON Homjsraimojocn (was sixteen years a Jesuit, d. 1923) :
Das Papstthum in wciutrkult. Wirsamkeit, 3 vols., 4th cd., 1003. — LIHTZMANN: Petrus und Pauluxt in
Horn, 2nd cd,, 1027.— KOCH: Cathedra Petri (dedicated to Schnitzcr), Giosson, 1930.
Page 220,
H. E. JACOBS: The Book of Concord or the Symbol. Books of the Ev. Luth. Church, 2 vols., Phil,, 1&82,
1912.-— The iMth. Cyclopedia by JAOOKH and HAAS, Phil., 1800. — Concordia Cyclopedia, 3 vols., 1927. —
SCHMXD; The Doctor, Th&ol. of the Bv. Jjuth. Ch., trans, by Hay and Jacobs, 3rd ed,, Phil., 1899. — Luther's
Primary Writings, trans, by Buohheim and Waoe, 1896,— Luther's Works, Engl. trans., 2 vols., Phil.,
1015. — Luther's Correspondence, trans, by P. Smith and Jacobs, 2 vols., 1013-1918. — Lives of Luther
by SCHAFF in "Hist, cf Chr. Church," vol. vi.; JACOBS, 1808; LINDSAY in "Hist, of tho Reformation,"
1006; PttB8Hiiv»30 SMITH, 1011; McGnwiauT, 1014; BOWIIMBR, En#l. trans., 1916; MACKINNON, 4 vols,,
1025-1030; DBNXFMB (tt. C.), 2 volfi,, 2nd ed., 1004; GwiaAU (R. C.), Engl. trans., 3 vols., 1911, 1912.
—P. SMITH: Age of the Reformation, 1020, — DftLMNaum: Akad. VortrOge, vol. i, 1872. Written after
his repudiation of the dogma of Infallibility.
Page 225.
Editions of tho Augeb. Conf. in Latin and German texts by KOLDE, Gotha, 1896, 1911 and WENDT,
Halle, 1027.— FICKKK: Konfutation de$ Augzb. Bekcnntniascs, Leipsio, 1892.— A number of publica-
tions bearing on tho Augsb. Gonfossion wore issued in connexion with tho quadrioontonnial of the
Confession's appearance, 1030,
Page 354.
25wiNaw; S&mmttiche Werke, od. by Egli, Kfihler, etc., 1904, sqq, — KABL, MO-LLBE: Die Bekenntniss-
ttchriftm der rcformirten Kirche, Lcipaic, 1903. Contains documents not given by Schaff, as Calvin's
Genevan Catechism, pp. 117-158; Hungar. Conf, of 1562, pp. 376-448; tha Larger Westminster Cat.,
pp. 612-643; tho Nassau Cat. of 1578, pp. 720-738, and tho Hesso Cat. of 1007, pp. 822-833.— Lives
of Zwingli by STAHEUN, 2 vols., Basel, 1897; S. M. JACKSON, N. Y., 1901. Also Selections from
JSwingli, Phil, 1001.— S. SIMPSON, N. Y., 1902; Egli in Horsog Encyol., vol. xxi.— HUMBBL: Zwingli
im Spiegel der gleichxeiL schweizer. Lit., 1912.
Page 388.
Art., "Bullingor," by EGLX in Herzog Encycl., vol. iii,, pp, 536-54.9, — 'BxiLLtNaua: Diariwn, ed. by
Egli, Basel, 1904, and Qogewate der ev. und rdm. Lehre, od. by Kiigelgon, 1906,— Art., "Heivotische
Konfoseionon," by KARL MILLER in Horzog Enoyol., vol. vii and "Hclvotiecho Konfessionaformeln"
by EOLI, vol. vii.
Page 421.
CHOISY: L'&at chr. a Qfy&ve au temps de Th. de 3ezet Paris, 1003.— BOBOBAU: Hist, de Vuniveraitt
de Gentve, Paris, 1903.— Lives of Cabin by SCHAIW in "Hist, of Chr. Ch.," vol. vii.; KAMPFBCHCLTM,
ADDITIONS TO THE LITEJRATttilE.
od. by Goetz, 2 vols., 1899; DOUMBRGUJB, 7 vols., Lausanne, 1809-1027; W. W, WALKVR, N. Y., 1900;
REYBUBN, London, 1914; LINDSAY in "Hist, of the Reformation," vol. ii.
Page 602.
The Works of B. B. Warfield, Qxf., 1928 sqq.
Page 565.
WORKMAN and POPS: Letters of J. Hus, London, 1904. — Lives of Huss by COUNT tithnsow, London,
1909; 1), S. SCIHAW, N. Y., 1915, and HUB*' de? Mcdesia, trans, with Notoa, N. Y., 1915. -Ivi-m: John
XXIII. and J. //us, London, 1910. Miiller in Bekcnntnisschriften gives in full this Uuiignr. Confes-
sions and the Bohcni. Conf. of 1009.
Page 568.
The Nokia Leycon, with Notes, cd., by Stcfano, Paris, 1909.— -CoMiiA, father and son: Ilia, of the
Waldenses in Italy, Engl. trans. 1889; Storin dei Valdesi, 1893.— JALLA: Hist. <fo* Vuwlvis, Torre
Police, 1904.
Page 589.
BALOQH: Hist, of the Ref. Ch. in Hungary in Itof . Ch. Rov,, July, 1900,
Page 592.
Use of Sarum, od, from MSS. by Fr6r«, 2 vols., Cambr., 1898-1901. — GMR and HAUDY: Documents
Illustr. of JSngl Ch. JF/isf.—- PKOTIUDRO: *Vei«d 6'^w^o o/ tilizatwth and «/«m«# /.— U, K JA<:<*IIH: 7%«
Lw«A. CA. Movement in Engl, Phil., 1870, 1H91.— LINDSAY: Hint, of thtt tteforrriatwn, voi, ii., pt>, J«ft-
418.— The ffiat. of the JSnQl, Ch. from Henry VIII. to Mary's Death by GAWDNMK and uiuiiff KU»a«
both and James I. by Fufciun, 1902, 1904.— POLLARD: Henry VXIL, London, 1902, Thin. Crammr,
1904; Wohev, 1929,
Page 650.
TIFFANY: Hist, of the Prot, Up. Ch., N. Y., 1895,— HOE>OM»: Three Hundred Yean of the Sp. Ch.
in Am., Phil, 1907.—C*ioea: The Angl Episcopate and the Am. Colonies, N. YM 1902.
Page 669.
Histories of the Scotch Reformation by MITCHELL, 1900; FLBMXNO, 1904, 1910; MAOKWAN, 1913,—*
Uves ofKnov by COWAN, 1906; P. H. BROWN, 1906,— A. LANQ: ^. Knox and the Reformation, 1905.
Pages 701, 820, 835.
H. M, DBXTJJR: The Conoregationalists of the Last 800 Years, N. Y., 1880.— W. W. WAUEBX: Onett
and Platforms of Congregationalism, N. Y,, 1893; Mitt, of the Cony. Churches in the U, &, N. Y., 1M)4.
— J, BROWN: The Engl Puritans, London, 1910.— R. C. U»H»R: Reconstruction of the tinvl Ch., 2 vote,,
London, 1910.— W. SBJLBXJH: Mngl Sects, Congregationalism, London, 1922.— Grig. NarrtUim of Karty
Am, Hist., od. by Jamicson, N. Y., 1908, sqq. — W. E. BARTON: Congr. Creeds and Cotien<mta, ChioA£0,
1917.
Page S13.
McDoNNOLD: Hist, of the Cumberl Presb. Ch., Nashville, 1888.— MILLER: Doctr. of the CumbtrL
Presb. Ch., Nashville, 1892.
Page 840.
VHDDBR: Balthazar Hubmaier, N. YM 1903.— NBWMAN: Hist, of the Bapt, Chh, in the U. S,, N. Y.f
1894.— UNDBRHILL: Conff. of faith of the 3o.pt. Chh. in England in the 17th Century, London, 1854.—
McGLOTHLiN: Bapt. Conff. of Faith, Phil., 1911.— CAIIKOLL; Baptists and their Doctrines, N. Y.» 1013,
Page 859,
THOMAS: Hist, of the Soc. of friends, in "Am, Ch. Hist. Series," N. Y., 1894,— SHAIU»L»HK: Hist, of
Quaker Govt, in Pa., 2 vols., Phil, 1898. — K. M. JONES: The Quakers in the Am. Colonies, London, 1011 ;
The Faith and Practice of the Quakers, 1927.— HOLDER: The Quakers in Great Britain and Am., N. Y.»
1913.
Page 874.
HAMILTON: Hist, of the Morav. Ch., Bothlohem, 1900. Also in "Am, Ch. Hist, Sortoa."
Page 882.
The Journal of John Wesley, 8 vols., od. by Curnook, London, 1910.— BUGKLDY: Hist, of thtt Meth-
odists in the U. S., N. Y., 1896.— E, 8. TIPPLE: The Heart of Asbury's Journal, N, YM UK)f>, -HwoN:
Revival of Rel in England in the 18th Cent., London, 1907.— LXDOIDTT and RKMD: Methodism in the
Modern World, London, 1929.— RATTENBTTRQ: Wesley's Legacy to the World, London, 19m—AiULBNS
Methodism and Modern World Problems, London, 1930.— LUNN: J. Wesley, London, 1929,— Liwt of
Asbury, by TIPPLE, N. Y., 1916, and J. LEWIS, 1927.
A HISTORY OF THE CREEDS Of CHRISTENDOM,
HISTORY OF THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
FIRST CHAPTER.
OF CltKEDti IN GENERAL.
General lAteratutr.
WM. BTTNLOP (Prof, of Church Hint, at Edinburgh, d. 1720) : Account of all Me. Enfa and Use.* ofCrwdx <wd
Cotifesmom of Faith, a Defvwte of their Justice, 2ieasonabkneostan(l jfawtMtty ax a /*f*W/« Standard vf Ortho-
doxy, 2d ed. Lond. 1724. Preface to pDunlop'e] Collection of Confcmiom in the Church of Scotland, Bdinb.
1719 aq. Vol. I. pp. v.-c,xlv.
J. OAHUAK KOU:IKU: tt'ibliot.hcca theologies symlolicce et catechetical ; itemque liturgicce, Wolfenb. and
Jeua, 1761 -GO, 8 part*, 8vo.
CIIABLKS BUTLBII (U.C., d. 18B2): An Historical and Literary Account of the Formularies, Cottfessiow
of Faith, or Hyinbol'to Book* of the Rmnan Catholic, Greek, and principal Protestant Churches. JBy the
Author of the Mow Hiblicm, London, 1810 (pp. 200).
CIIAULKH ANTHONY SwAtNBON (Prof, at Cambridge and Canon of Chichester) : The Creed* of the Church
in their lidatiom to the Word of God and to the Conscience of the Individual Christian (Hulseau Lectures
for 185T), Cambridge, 18«8.
FBANOIH (?iiAi»oNNifeiut (Unlvornity of Geneva): La Qwtition des Confessions tie Foi au sein du Protes-
tonttf#mn ftontetnporain, GuuAvo, 1807. (Pt. I. Examcn dea Faitd. Pt. II. Discussion dcs Principes.)
KA»L LKOIILXB: Qte GonfewionMi in ihrem Verhdltniss zu Chriatuti, Ileilbroini, 1877.
The IntrortuctioiiH to the workn on tiymbolicti by MAiiiiiciNjffiKK, WINEK, MOIILBR, K^LLNEB, GUJCUIOKE,
MATTIIWH, HOPMANN, OKULBR, contain some account of symbols, as alwo the Prolegomena to the Collections
qfthc tiymboltt of the varioun Churches by WALOJX, MOLLBB, NIKMBYBB, KIMMKL, etc., which will be noticed
lu their respective places below.
§ 1. NAME AND DEFINITION.
A Creed,1 or Rule of Faith,2 or Symbol,3 is a confession of faith for
public use, or a form of words setting forth with authority certain arti-
*From the beginning of the Apostles' Creed (Credo, I believe), to which the term is applied
more particularly,
a K.av6v T% 7r/(jT€0>c or rye dX^SWac, regula Jidei^ regula veritatis. These are the oldest
term» used by the ante-Niccno fathers, Irenesus, Tertullian, etc.
8 SfyfioXoViSymbolwn (from <ru/i^3<iXX€iv7 to throw together, to compare), means a mark, badge,
watchword, test. It was first used in a theological sense by Cyprian, A.D. 250 (Ep. 76, al.
00, ad Magnum, where it is said of the schismatic Novatianus, ' eodem SYM HOLO, quo et nos,
baptizare'j, and then very generally since the fourth century. It "was chiefly applied to the
Apostles' Creed as the baptismal confession "by which Christians could bo known and distin-
guished from Jews, heathen, and heretics, in the sense of a military signal or watchword (tes-
sera militarist) ; the Christians being regarded as soldiers of Christ fighting under the banner
of the cross. Ambrose (d. ftJ)7) calls it 'cordis signarufam et nostrce militm sacrammtum^
Rufinus, in his A/V/>0#ift'o in Symb, AposL, uses the word likewise in the military sense, but
gives it also the meaning collatiO) contributio (confounding eri>/i/3oXo*' with avnpo\fy, with
reference to the legend of the origin of the creed from contributions of the twelve apostles
(' guod plwts in unwn conferunt; id enim fec.erunt (ipostoli,* etc.). Others take the word in
the sense of a compact, or agreement (so Suicer, Then. ecd. II. 108 4 : ^Dicere pos&uwus* syw*
bolum non a militari, Bed a contractuum tessera nonien id ac.cepisse. ; tst enim tessera
quod in baptimo inimus rum Deo'}. Still others derive it (with King, History of t
Creed, p. 8) from the signs of recognition among the heathen in their mysteries. Luther and
4; THE CREEDS OF OHKISTENDOM,
cles of belief, which are regarded by the framerfi OH necessary for salva-
tion, or at least for the well-being of the Christian Church.
A creed may cover the whole ground of ( •hristian doctrine and prac-
tice, or contain only such points as are deemed fundamental and Bufll-
eient, or as have been disputed. It may be declarative, or interrogative
in form. It may be brief and popular (as the Apostles1 and the Nicene
Creeds), for general use in catechetical instruction and at baptism; or
more elaborate and theological, for ministers and teacher*, as a standard
of public doctrine (the symbolical books of the Reformation period).
In the latter case a confession of faith is always the result of dogmatic
controversy, and more or less directly or indirectly polemical against
opposing error. Each symbol bears the impress of its age, and the his-
torical situation out of which it arose.
There is a development in the history of symbols. They assume a
more definite shape with the progress of biblical and theological knowl-
edge. They are mile-stones and finger-boards in the history of Chris-
tian doctrine. They embody the faith of generations, and the most
valuable results of religious controversies. They still shape and regu-
late the theological thinking and public teaching of the churches of
Christendom. They keep alive sectarian strifes and antagonism^ but
they reveal also the underlying agreement, and foreshadow the POBBI-
bility of future harmony.
§ 2, ORIGIN OF GBRKPS.
Faith, like all strong conviction, has a desire to utter itself before
others — ' Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speakoth ;' * I
believe, therefore I confess' (6yw/0, ergo conjiteor}. There is also an
express duty, when we are received into the membership of the Chris-
tian Church, and on every proper occasion, to profess the faith within
us, to make ourselves known as followers of Christ, and to lead others
to him by the influence of our testimony.1
Melancthon first applied it to Protestant creeds. A distinction in made HornotimeK between
Symbol and Symbolical Book, as also between symbota fwbticu and tytntwfa privtita* The
term theologia symbolica is of more recent origin than the term littri lymbolirL
1 Oomp. Matt. x. 82, 83 : * Every one who shall confess me before mon, him will I nlwo con-
fess before my Father who is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before mem, him will
I also deny before my Father who is in heaven.' Rom. x, 9, 10 : * If thou shalt nmfm with
thy mouth the Lord Jesus [Jesus as Lord]) and shalt believe in thine heart that God htith
§ 2. ORIGIN OF CR&ttDS. 5
This is the origin of Christian symbols or creeds. They never pre-
cede faith, but presuppose it. They emanate from the inner life of the
Church, independently of external occasion. There would have been
creeds even if there had been no doctrinal controversies.1 In a certain
sense it may be said that the Christian Church has never been without
a creed (Eedesia sine symbolis nulla). The baptismal formula and
the words of institution of the Lord's Supper are creeds ; these and the
confession of Peter antedate even the birth of the Christian Church on
the day of Pentecost. The Church is, indeed, not founded on symbols,
btit on Christ ; not on any words of man, but on the word of God ; yet
it is founded on Christ as confessed by men, and a creed is man's an-
swer to Christ's question, man's acceptance and interpretation of God's
word. Hence it is after the memorable confession of Peter that Christ
said, * Thou art Rock, and upon this rock I shall build my Church,3 as
if to say, £ Thou art the Confessor of Christ, and on this Confession, as
an immovable rock, I shall build my Church.' Where there is faith,
there is also profession of faith. As ' faith without works is dead,' so
it may bo said also that faith without confession is dead.
But this confession need not always be written, much less reduced
to a logical formula, if a man can say from his heart, < I believe in
the Lord Jesus Christ,' it is sufficient for his salvation (Acts xvi. 31).
The word of God, apprehended by a living faith, which founded the
Christian Church, was at first orally preached and transmitted by the
apostles, then laid down in the New Testament Scriptures, as a pure
and unerring record for all time to come. So the confession of faith,
or the creed, was orally taught and transmitted to the catechumens,
and professed by them at baptism, long before it was committed to
writing. As long as the Disciplines arcani prevailed, the summary
of the apostolic doctrine, called < the rule of faith,' was kept confi-
dential among Christians, and withheld even from the catechumens
till the last stage of instruction ; and hence wo have only fragmentary
raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto [so
as to obtain] righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.'
1 Semisch, Das apostolische Glaubensbekenntniss (Berlin, 1872, p. 7) : * Btkenntnisse, an
welchen sich das gei&tige Lebtn gamer Volker auf&bwt , wefohe langm Jahrhunderten die
hochsttn f/Me und bestimmenden Kr&fte ihres Handdntt vorwic.hmn, sind nicht Noth- und
Flkkwerfa des Augenblicfa . , . es sind Thaten des Lebens, Pvlsschldge der sich selbst be-
zeugenden JKirche.'
6 THE CREEDS OF OHRISTRNDOM.
accounts of it in the writings of the ante-Nicene fathers. When con-
troversies arose concerning the true moaning of the SmpturoH, it be-
came necessary to give formal expression of their true sense, to regulate,
the public teaching of the Church, and to guard it against error. In
this way the creeds were gradually enlarged and multiplied, even to the
improper extent of theological treatises and systems of divinity.
The first Christian confession or creed is that of Peter, when Christ
asked the apostles, ' Who say ye that I am?' and Peter, in the name of
all the rest, exclaimed, as by divine inspiration, * Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God1 (Matt. xvi. 16).1 This became naturally the
substance of the baptismal confession, since Christ is the chief object of
the Christian faith. Philip required the eunuch simply to profess tho
belief that 'Jesus was the Bon of God.' In conformity with the bap-
tismal formula, however, it soon took a Trinitarian shape, probably in
some such simple form as £ I believe in God the Father, tho Kon, and
the Holy Spirit' Gradually it was expanded, by the addition of other
articles, into the various rules of faith, of which tho Roman form under
the title ' the Apostles' Creed' became the prevailing one, after tho fourth
century, in the West, and the Nicene Creed in the East. Tho Prottmt-
ant Church, as a separate organization, dates from 1517, but it was not
till 1530 that its faith was properly formulartaed in the Augsburg Con-
fession.
A symbol may proceed from tho general life of the Church in a par-
ticular age without any individual authorship (as the Apostles' Creed) ;
or from an (Ecumenical Council (the Niceno Creed ; the Creed of Ghal-
cedon) ; or from the Synod of a particular Church (tho Decrees of the
Council of Trent ; the Articles of Dort ; the Westminster Confession
and Catechisms) ; or from a number of divines commissioned for such
work by ecclesiastical authority (the Thirty-nine Articles of tho Church
of England ; the Heidelberg Catechism ; the Form of Concord) ; or from
one individual, who acts in this case as tho organ of his church or sect
(the Augsburg Confession, and Apology, composed by Molancthon ; the
Articles of Smalkald, and the Catechisms of Luther ; the second Ilel-
1 The similar confession, John vi. 69, is of a previous data It reads, according to the
early authorities, * Thou art the Holy One of God* (<ri> rf 6 tiyw &ou), A denignation of tho
Messiah. This text coincides with the testimony of the demoniacs, Marc, L 26, who, with
ghostlike intuition, perceired the supernatural character of Jesus,
§ 3. AUTHORITY OF CHEKDS. 7
vetic Confession by Bullingcr). What gives them symbolical or au-
thoritative character is the formal sanction or tacit acquiescence of the
church or sect which they represent In Congregational and Baptist
churches the custom prevails for each local church to have its own con-
fession of faith or c covenant,' generally composed by the pastor, and
derived from the Westminster Confession, or some other authoritative
symbol, or drawn up hid' endently.
§ 3. AUTHORITY OF CREEDS.1
1. In the Protestant system, the authority of symbols, as of all hu-
man compositions, IB relative and limited. It is not co-ordinate with,
but always subordinate to, the Bible, as the only infallible rule of the
Christian faith and practice. The value of creeds depends upon the
measure of their agreement with the Scriptures. In the best case a
human creed is only an approximate and relatively correct exposition
of revealed truth, and may be improved by the progressive knowledge
of the Church, while the Bible remains perfect and infallible. The
Bible is of God ; the Confession is man's answer to God's word.2 The
Bible m the nortna normans; the Confession the norma normata.
The Bible is the rule of faith (regula fideS) ; the Confession the rule
of doctrine (regula doctrince). The Bible has, therefore, a divine and
absolute, the, Confession only an ecclesiastical and relative authority.
The Bible regulates the general religious belief and practice of the
laity as well as the clergy ; the symbols regulate the public teaching of
the officers of the Church, as Constitutions and Canons regulate the
government, Liturgies and Hymn-books the worship, of the Church.
Any higher view of the authority of symbols is unprotestant and es-
sentially Romanizing. Symbololatry is a species of idolatry, and sub-
stitutes the tyranny of a printed book for that of a living pope. It is
1 On the authority and use of Symbols there are a number of Latin and German treatises
by 0. U. Hahn (1883), Hoefling (1835), Sartorius (1845), Uarless (184<>)» A. Hahn (1847),
Kollner (1847), Gonsskou (1851), Bretwchneider (18,30), Johann sen (18&*), *™& others, all with
special reference to the Lutheran State Churches in Germany* &ee the literature in Mtiller,
Die, symb. Bltcher dcr emng* luth, Kirch*, p. xv., and oldor works in Winer's Handbuch d&r
theol Literatur, 8d ed. Vol. I. p. 834. Comp, also Dunlop and Chaponniere (Part II.), cited in § 1.
* For this reason a creed ought to use language different From that of the Bible. A string
of Scripture passages would be no creed at all, as little ns it would be a prayer or a hymn.
A creed is, as it were, a doctrinal poem written under the inspiration, of divine truth, Thi?
may be said at least of the oecumenical creeds.
VOL. L— B
8 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
apt to produce the opposite extreme of a rejection of all creeds, and to
promote rationalism and infidelity.
2. The Greek Church, and still more the Roman Church, regarding
the Bible and tradition as two co-ordinate Hources of truth and ruloH of
faith, claim absolute and infallible authority for their confessions of
faith.1
The Greek Church confines the claim of infallibility to the seven
oecumenical Councils, from the first Council of JNica».a? 325, to the sec-
ond of Nicsea, 787.
The Roman Church extends the same claim to the Council of Trent
and all the subsequent official Papal decisions on questions of faith
down to the decree of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, and the dog-
ma of Papal Infallibility proclaimed by the Vatican Council in 1870,
Since that time the Pope is regarded by orthodox Romanists as the or-
gan of infallibility, and all his official decisions on matters of faith and
morals must be accepted as final, without needing the sanction of an
oecumenical council.
It is clear that either the Greek or the Roman Church, or both, must
be wrong in this claim of infallibility, since they contradict each other
on some important points, especially the authority of the pope, which in
the Roman Church is an articulus stantis et cadentis ecdesto, and is
expressly taught in the Creed of Pius V. and the Vatican Decrees.
§ 4. VALUK AND USK OF CEKKDS.
Confessions, in due subordination to the Bible, are of great value and
use. They are summaries of the doctrines of the Bible> aids to its
sound understanding, bonds of xinion among their professors, public
standards and guards against false doctrine and practice. In the form
of Catechisms they are of especial use in the instruction of children,
and facilitate a solid and substantial religious education, in distinction
from spasmodic and superficial excitement. The first object of creeds
was to distinguish the Church from the world, from Jews and heathen,
afterwards orthodoxy from heresy, and finally denomination from da-
nomination. In all these respects they are still valuable and indispen-
sable in the present order of things. Every well-regulated society, sec-
1 Tertullian already speaks of the regulajidei immohiliy et irrtformabili* (De virp, vel, c. l)f
bat be applied it only to the simple form which is substantially retained in the Apostles7 ( freed
§ 5. CLASSIFICATION OF CKEEJDS. 9
ular or religious, needs an organization and constitution, and can not
prosper without discipline. Catechisms, liturgies, hymn-books are creeds
also aw far as they embody doctrine.
There has been much controversy about the degree of the binding
force of creeds, and the yuw or quatenus in the form of subscription.
The whole authority and use of symbolical books has been opposed and
denied, especially by Socinians, Quakers, Unitarians, and Rationalists.
It is objected that they obstruct the free interpretation of the Bible and
the progress of theology ; that they interfere with the liberty of con-
science and the right of private judgment; that they engender hypoc-
risy, intolerance, and bigotry ; that they produce division and distrac-
tion ; that they perpetuate religious animosity and the curse of secta-
rianism ; that, by the law of reaction, they produce dogmatic indiffer-
entiBtn, skepticism, and infidelity ; that the symbololatry of the Lutheran
and Calvinistic State Churches in the seventeenth century is responsible
for the apostasy of the eighteenth.1 The objections have some force in
those State Churches which allow no liberty for dissenting organiza-
tions, or when the creeds are virtually put above the Scriptures instead
of being subordinated to them. But the creeds, as such, are no more
responsible for abuses than the Scriptures themselves, of which they
profess to be merely a summary or an exposition. Experience teaches
that those sects which reject all creeds are as much under the authority
of a traditional system or of certain favorite writers, and as much ex-
posed to controversy, division, and change, as churches with formal
creeds. Neither creed nor no-creed can be an absolute protection of
the purity of faith and practice. The best churches have declined or
degenerated ; and corrupt churches may be revived and regenerated by
the Spirit of God, and the Word of God, which abides forever,
§ 5. CLASSIFICATION OF CBBKDS.
The Creeds of Christendom may be divided into four classes, corre-
sponding to the three main divisions of the Church, the Gre^. Latin,
and Evangeli,^!, and their common parent. A progressive growth of
theology in different directions can be traced in them.
1. The CEouMHwriOAL Symbols of the ANCIENT CATHOLIC Church. They
1 Theae objections are noticed and answered at length by Dunlop, in his preface to the
Collection of Scotch Confessions, and in the more recent work? quoted on D. 7,
10 TlIK CHIKKOS OF CIIKIKTKNUOM.
contain chiefly the orthodox doctrine of God and of Christ, or the fun*
damentai dogmas of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. They are
the common property of all churches, and the common stock from
which the later symbolical books have grown.
2. The Symbols of the GKKKK or OKIKNTAL Church, in which the
Greek faith is net forth in distinction from that of the Itoman Catholic
and the evangelical Protestant Churches. They were called forth by
the fruitless attempts of the Jesuits to Romanize the Greek Church, and
by the opposite efforts of the crypto-CalviniBtic Patriarch CyrilluK Lu-
caris to evangelize the same. They differ from the Roman Creeds
mainly in the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit, and the
more important doctrine of the Papacy; but in the controversies on the
rule of faith, justification by faith, the church and the sacraments, the
worship of saints and relics, the hierarchy and the monastic system,
they are much more in harmony with Romanism than with Protest-
antism.
3. The Symbols of the ROMAN Church, from the Council of Trent to
the Council of the Vatican (1563 to 1870). They sanction the distinc-
tive doctrines of Romanism, which were opposed by the Reformers, and
condemn the leading principles of evangelical Protestantism, especially
the supreme authority of the Scriptures as a sufficient rule of faith and
practice, and justification by faith alone. The last dogma, proclaimed
by the Vatican Council in 1870, completes the system by making the
official infallibility of the Pope an article of the Catholic faith (which
it never was before),
4. The Symbols of the EVANGELICAL PKOTESTANT Churches. Most
of them date from the period of the Reformation (some from the sev*
enteetith century), and thus precede, in part, the specifically Greek and
Latin confessions. They agree with the primitive Catholic Symbols, but
they ingraft upon them the Augustinian theory of sin and grace, and
several doctrines in anthropology and soteriology (e, (/., the doctrine of
atonement and justification), which had not been previously settled by
the Church in a conclusive way. They represent the progress in the
development of Christian theology among the Teutonic nations, a pro*
founder understanding of the Holy Scriptures (especially t)m Pauline
Epistles), and of the personal application of Christ's mediatorial worK.
The Protestant Symbolsl again, are either LUTHKBAN or
§ t>. CtASSttflCAl'lOtt OF CREfcDfc H
The former wei*o all made in Germany from A.D. 1530 to 1577; the
hitter arose in different countries — Germany, Switzerland, France, Hol-
land, Hungary, Poland, England, Scotland, wherever the influence of
Zwingli and Calvin extended. The Lutheran and Reformed confes-
sions agree almost entirely in their theology, christology, anthropology,
sotoriology, and eschatology, but they differ in the doctrines of divine
decrees and of the nature and efficacy of the sacraments, especially
tho mode of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper.
The later evangelical denominations, as the Congregational ists, Bap-
tittts, Quakers, Arminians, Methodists, Moravians, acknowledge the
leading doctrines of the Reformation, but differ from Liitheranism
and Calvinism in a number of articles touching anthropology, the
Church, and the sacraments, and especially on Church polity and dis-
cipline. Their creeds are modifications and abridgments rather than
enlargements of the old Protestant symbols.
The heretical sects connected with Protestantism mostly reject sym-
bolical books altogether, as a yoke of human authority and a new kind
of popery. Borne of them set aside even the Scriptures, and make their
own reason or the spirit of the age the sxipretne judge and guide in
matters of faith ; but such loose undenominational denominations have
generally no cohesive power, and seldom outlast their founders.
Tho denominational creed-making period closed with the middle of
the seventeenth century, except in tho Roman Church, which has quite
recently added two dogmas to her creed, viz., the Immaculate Concep-
tion of the Virgin Mary (1854), and tho Infallibility of the Bishop of
Rome (1870).
If we are to look for any new creed, it will be, we trust, a creed, not
of disunion and discord, but of union and concord among the different
branches of Christ's kingdom.
12 THE CREEDS OF CWU8TENDOM.
SECOND CHAPTER.
THE (ECUMENICAL CREEDS.
Literature on the three (Rcwnentfal dreed*.
GKBH, JoAN.Vosa (Dutch Reformed, b. near Heidelberg IftTT, <1. at Amsterdam Ifl40): /> Mftwu *Xf/wi«
IwZte, AyKNitolieo, Atliamutiaiw, ct Cotistantinapolitano. Three dimutrtatioiiM. AintU, HM'2 (nutl In Vol. VI,
of his Op<!ra, Amst. 1701), VOBB was the first to dispute and disprove the npoutollc nuthot'tihlp of thft
Apostles', and the Athauaslim anthorohip of the Athauasiau ('rood.
JAMKB UBBIIKR (Lat. Ussimxtra, Protestant Archbishop of Armagh, d.1685): tie Jtomaw eeeUtfa Kyt&>
bolo ApostQlteo vetere, atttequc Jidei formulit*, turn ab OcotdintalibnH turn ab OrfentoUbm in jtrtotM mfcrAwtf
et baptiwno proponi solititi, Lund. 1647 (also Gcmwa, 17ti2, pp. 17 fol., and \vholu workM in It) voln., Dublin,
184T, Vol. VII. pp. 297 sq, I have lifted the Geneva od.).
Jos. UtmmAM (Rector of Havaut, noar Portsmouth, d. IW): Origlnf* KfflnfaHtut; <»r //w .1 ntitjttitic*
of the Christian Churc.h (tirnL publ. 1710-22 iu 10 vol»., and often nince in Kngl. and in the Latin tnuinl,
of Grlschoviiitf), Book X. eh. 4.
0. G. F. WAUUI (a Lutheran, d. at OiJttlngon in 1T84) : Bibliothfca tf//wlwttr» w<«#, Len»go, 17TO. (A
more complete collection than the preceding ones, but defective in the tcxtn,)
B. KOLLNKB: tiywlolik alle-r chrwtlMicn Ctonftrmtonen, Hamburg, 1H57 *HI<I.,VO!. 1. pp. 1 DU,
AUG. HAKN : MMfoMrk tier MynMe und Glaubensrtgdn dtsr Apostoltech-katholmhrn Kirche* Itrewlau,
1842. A now and revised ed. by LUDWIQ HAHN, Broalan, 1877 (pp. 800).
W. UAUVBY : Hittory and Theology of the ThrM Cre&la, Cambridge, 18&0, 2 volfl*
CHABMW A. Hxv&TMt* (Margaret Prof, of Divinity, Oxford): UarnMda Nywibottca: A tWrettim vf
Creeds belonrjiny to the Ancient Western Chureh and to the Mvdi&val Entjlitth Chur<-h. Oxford, tKnH. Tho
same : D* Vide et Nymboto. Oxou. et Loud. 1809.
C. P.OASPABI (Prof, in ChritttianUi) : Vngedruckte, unbeachtete und tornty brwhtetf, QuelltH zttr (irtehfahto
den Ta'UfHjjmbols und <ler Glaubcrixrcgel. Chriatiuuia, 1866 to lB7ff, 3 VO!H.
J. RAWHON LUMHY (Prof. atCambridgB) i TheHistoryqftJie Cretds. Cambridge, 1878 1 9d ed. London, l^HO.
C. A. SWAIMBOM (Prof, of Divinity, Cawbridge) : The Nicer* and Apostles' Cretd*. Thtir Literary //>*.
tory; tog*tlifr with tm Aeawint of the Growth and Reception of * tfa Crrnl of tft.AthttntmtuHS l^iutl. JH7ft,
F. JOHN ANTHONY HOIIT (Prof, in Cambridge): Two Dianertationit on mtwywiiv 2ww tttut un thr '•
u' Creed and ether JKastern Creed* of tfo Fourth Century. Cambridge and Loudon, t«7
§ 6. GKNKBAL CIIARAOTEB OF TUM QSotTMKNUUL OKKKIW.
By oecumenical or general symbols (symbola a^umenica^ #.
we understand the doctrinal confessions of ancient ChriBtianity, which
are to this day eitlier formally or tacitly acknowledged in the Greek,
the Latin, and the Evangelical Protestant Churches, and form a bond
of union between them*
They are three in number : the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athana*
sian Creed. The first is the simplest ; the other two are fuller develop-
ments and interpretations of the same. The Apostles1 Creed i« the
most popular in the Western, the Nicene in the Eastern Qhurchott.
To them may be added the christological statement of the <i»cmmmioal
Council of Chalcedon (451). It has a more undisputed authority than
1 The term o/Veo»>/*m/coc (from otKovfjikvn, so. yff, orlis terrarum, the infathitrtl earth ; in a
restricted sense, the old Roman JFSmpire, as embracing the civilized world) wan fim uMod in
its ecclesiastical application of the general synods of Nicfloa (Ji^f)), Constantinople (»Hl;, Kph-
estia C*SI), and Chalcedon (451), atoo of patriarch**, bi«hops, and ompororn, n«<Jt at a lator
period, of the ancient general symbols, to distinguish them from the confessions of particulftt
churches. In the Protestant Church the term so used occurs first in the Lutheran Book of
Concord (ttntmenira sw rat/wllea).
§ C. GENERAL CHARACTER Oif THE (ECUMENICAL CREEDS. 13
the Athanasian Creed (to which the term oecumenical applies only in a
(jualitiod sense), but, as it is seldom used, it is generally omitted from
the collections.
These three or four creeds contain, in brief popular outline, the fun-
damental articles of the Christian faith, as necessary and sufficient for
salvation. They embody the results of the great doctrinal controver-
sies of the Nicene and post-Nicene ages. They are a profession of
faith in the only true and living God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who
made us, redeemed us, and sanctities us. They follow the order of
God's own revelation, beginning with God and the creation, and ending
with the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting. They set
forth the articles of faith in the form of facts rather than dogmas, and
are well suited, especially the Apostles' Creed, for catechetical and li-
turgical use.
The Lutheran and Anglican Churches have formally recognized and
embodied the three oecumenical symbols in their doctrinal and liturgical
standards.1 The other Reformed Churches have, in their confessions,
adopted the trinitarian and christological doctrines of these creeds, but
in practice they confine themselves mostly to the use of the Apostles'
Creed.2 This, together with the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Command-
ments, was incorporated in the Lutheran, the Genevan, the Heidelberg,
and other standard Catechisms.
1 The Lutheran Form of Concord (p. 569) calls them 'ratholwa fit ffweratia suwnm auc-
toritatls symbol^ The various editions of the Book of Concord give them the first place
among the Lutheran symbols. Luther himself emphasised his agreement with them. The
Church of England, in the 8th of her 80 Articles, declares, "The three Creeds, Nicene Creed,
Athanasius's Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly
to be received and believed, for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scrip-
ture.' The American editions of the Articles and of the Book of Common Prayer omit the
Athanasian Creed, and the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States excludes it from
her service, The omission by the Convention of 1789 arose chiefly from opposition to the
damnatory clauses, which even Dr. Water-land thought might be left out. But the doctrine
of the Athanasian Creed is clearly taught in the first five Articles.
* The Second Helvetic Confession, art. 11, the Gallican Confession, art. 5, and the Belgic
Confession, art. 9, expressly approve the three Creeds, * as agreeing with the written Word of
God/ In 'The Constitution and Liturgy' of the (Butch) Reformed Church In the United
States the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed arc printed nt the end. The Apostle^1
Creed is embodied in the Heidelberg Catechism, as containing * the articles of our catholic
undoubted Christian faith,' The Shorter Westminster Catechism gives it merely in an Ap-
pendix, as ' a, brief sum of the Christian faith, agreeable to the Word of God, and anciently
received in the churches of Christ.'
14: THIS CBEEDS OF CHBLSTENDOM.
§ 7. THK APOSTLES' OKKKD.
Literature.
I, See the Gon. Lit. on tho (Ecmn. Creeds, 5 6, p. 12, especially IJUiw, HxintTMer, LtrMiir, HWAIMHOM,
aud CABI»AUI (the third vol. 1H78).
II. Special trcmtiHOH on the ApoHtlcH' dreed:
RUJTJLNUS (d. at Aquileja 410, a presbyter and monk, translator and eontinuator of Ii3u«eblu«'» Wiuwh
Htetory to A.D, 8U5, and translator of HOIUU works of Origan, with miHcrupuloiw adaptation to the pre-
vailing standard of orthodoxy ; at tin* t an intimate frfrud, afturwardH a bitter enemy of St. Jerome)!
K»}MHtMt> Ntnnboli (Apotttoltei), flrot printed, under the name of Jerome, at Oxford UfiH, then at Home
1470, at Utwlc IftlO, etc. ; alHo in the Appendix to John I?ell'« ed. of ('whin'* Opera (Oxon. loss, folio,
p, 17 MI.), awl In ttvjinl Opera, ed.VallarHi (Vcr, 1745), Bee the lint of cdrt. In Mine's IWrul. xxl. 17 '«*().
The gcnniueneHH of thin KxpoHitlon of the Creed i» disputed by Ffoulktw, on the Athanatt, rwW, p, H,
but without good reoHOii.
AMiwoHitm (biwhop of Milan, cl. SD7): Tractafats in Syniboluni Apontolnrwn (nlno H«b tit, lie Trtnltnfc}.
fywra, ed. Beued., Tom. II. 821. Thia tract in by some seholara asftigned to a much later date, twituM
it teachca the double proceHttiou of the Holy Spirit; but Huhn, 1. c. p. 10, (leftunln the Ambronian author-
ship with the exception of the received text of the Symbohun ApOHtolicum, which in prefixed, MHO,
Jtopl&nntto Symboli ad initiandoa, ascribed to St. Ambrose, and edited by Ang^to M«l in Wrrfyfwww f>^
rum Nova Gottectto, Kom. 1883, Vol. VII. pp. 166-I5S, and by Caspari, in the work quoted above, 11*48 «q.
VKNANT. FOUTUNATOH <d. about COO) : JKtywritto Syvnbott ((tycra, ed, Aug Loeht, Ucmi. 17K«),
AUOUBTINUH (biHhop of Utppo, d. 4IJO): De M'cie et tiynibato liber unm. O/wm, ed. BeutuIMT<«n, XI,
508-622. titentw de Nymboto ad catechwne'Hos, Tom. VIII. IC91-ICK). Sennonfti tit t radii fan* tiyinfalit Tom.
VIII. 980 sq.
M<>». AM\'itAW)irs (AMVKAUT, Prof, at Saumur, d. 1C04) : K&rettattoneii in ty/mb. Aiwtf* Hatmur. KWJt.
ISAAC BAKBOW (Maater of Trinity College, Cambridge, d. 1077). MennotM <m th# CVm/ (TMtty, W<trk*i
8 vole., Oxf. 1880, Vol. IV.-VL).
JOHN PJCABBON (Bishop of Cheater, d. 1680): An I&qpMMon of the Creetf, 10fi9, Btl ed. 1(WJ0 fol. (ftnd sev-
eral later editions by Dobson, Burton, Nichols, Chcvallicr). One of the claHHlcal woi'kn of the i'huirh
of England.
PJBTKR Km» (Lord Chancellor of England, d, 17811) : The fftohnry o/ tttf A$K>*tletf Crwti, with Prttieat Ob-
wnattaruit London, 170!i. (The paine In Latin by Oleariwt, Llpn. 1700.)
H.WITSIUB (I*roh in Leyden, d. 1TOH): Jtijwrc.itatltmett «am*» in tfymbotum qt
Amstol. 1700 ; Banll. 1780. EngllHh traiiBlatiou by leaner, Mdlab. IHiia, « VO!H.
J. jffi. IM»WAI.OII (ProfosHor in Jena, (1. 177H) : Antttjuttatt* nymboliw, tfuitmn Hitnttntlt Apwhtlict Mtttwfa
illuatr&tur, Jena, 177ii, Wvo.
A. G. KXTDKUJAOII (Luth.) : PtV ft?deutnw<j tie.* aport. Kynibobantij Leips«< 1844 (78 pp.).
PKTKK MBYRKB (U. C.): J)e Symboli Apotttolirf Tituh, Origin* ft A vetoritatt, Twvirla, 1849 (pp.210).
Defends the npontollc origin,
J. W. NKVIN: The Aiwstltf Crted, In the lMer<smbury nevfewj Mercer«burg, Pa., for 1H4&, pp. lOfy 5J01,
818, 585. An exposition of the doctrinal nyutem of the Creed.
MXOIIKL NICOLAS: Le symbol* den apt>trf>H, Par is, 18(57. Hationallatic.
0. Lisoo (jun.) : Don apofttolisohR Glaub&nHl>ekenntni8$, Berlin, IBT'2. In oppORltlon to itu obligatory u«e
*n the church.
0. ZOoKtKu: /M« tiVMtollMht Nymbnlwn, Gftternlohe, 1872 (40 pp.). In defense of the Oettd.
CA.UL SBM i8on (Prof, of Church History in Berlin) t />«« ajwtottwhe OlanlwtMltebfnntnttt^ Berlin, 1H72
(81 pp.),
A. MUOKE: Dan a&ovtol'tecM GUtubenNbckenHtniM <tor Mte Aundntck aputttuUtwht'H
1878 (160 pp.).
The APOBTLBS' CBEBPJ or SYMBOLTTM APOSTOLTOTTM, is, aft to it« forniy
not tlie production of the apostles, as was formerly boliovod^but an ad-
mirable popular summary of the apostolic teaching, and in full harmo-
ny with the spirit and even the letter of the New Testament
I. CHARACTER and VALUK. — As the Lord's Prayer in tho Prayer of
prayers, the Decalogue the Law of laws, so the Apostles' Creed IB tho
Creed of creeds. It contains all the fundamental articles of the Chris-
tian faith necessary to salvation, in the form of facts, in simple Scrip-
§ 7. THE APOSTLES' CREED. 15
ture language, and in the most natural order — the order of revelation —
from God and the creation down to the resurrection and life everlast-
ing. It is Trinitarian, and divided into three chief articles, expressing
faith — in God the Father, the Maker of heaven and earth, in his only
Son, our Lord and Saviour, and in the Holy Spirit (in Deum Patrem,,
in <fe#tom* Christum, in tfpiritum Sanctum) ; the chief stress being laid
on the second article, the supernatural birth, death, and resurrection of
Christ. Then, changing the language (credo in for credo with the sim-
ple accusative), the Creed professes to believe c the holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the
body, and the life everlasting.'1 It is by far the best popular summary
of the Christian faith ever made within so brief a space. It still sur-
passes all later symbols for catechetical and liturgical purposes, espe-
cially as a profession of candidates for baptism and church member-
ship. It is not a logical statement of abstract doctrines, but a profes-
sion of living facts and saving truths. It is a liturgical poem and an
act of worship. Like the Lord's Prayer, it loses none of its charm and
effect by frequent use, although, by vain and thoughtless repetition, it
may be made a martyr and an empty form of words. It is intelligible
and edifying to a child, and fresh and rich to the prof oundest Christian
scholar, who, as he advances in age, delights to go back to primitive
foundations and first principles. It has the fragrance of antiquity and
the inestimable weight of universal consent. It is a bond of union
between all ages and sections of Christendom. It can never be super-
seded for popular use in church and school.2
1 This change was observed already by Rufinus (1. c. § 86), who says i 'Non dicit " IN Sane-
tarn EGclesiam," nee *' IN remissionem peccatorwn," nee "Itf carnis resurrectionem." Si enim
addidisset u IN" prcepositionem, una eademque visfuisset own superioribus. . . . Haaprcepo-
sitionis syltaba Creator a creaturis secernitw, et divina separnntur ab humanis.1 The Roman
Catechism (P, I. c. 10, qu, 1!)) also marks this distinction, lNunc autem, mutata dicendi forma,
"sanctam," et non **tn sanctam" ecclesiam credere pro/itemur.'
3 Augustine calls the Apostolic Symbol ''regulajidei brevis et grandis; brevis numero verbo-
rwrij grandis pondere sententiariim^ Luther says : * Christian truth could not possibly be put
into a shorter and clearer statement.' Calvin (Jnstf.,Lib. II. c. HJ, § 1 8), while doubting its
strictly apostolic composition, yet regards it as an admirable and trnly scriptural summary of
the Christian faith, and follows its order in his Institutes, saying : '/// extra controversial, posi-
turn kabemus, totam in eo [Symbolo Ap*~\jidei nostrcs historian succinrte distinctoque ordine
recenseri, nikil autem continpri, quod solidis Scriptures testimonies non sit consignatum.'* J. T.
Mliller (Lutheran, Die fif/wb. Btirher der "Evany. Luth.K.j'p.xvi.); 'It retains the double
significance of being the bond of union of the universal Christian Church, and the seed from
which all other creeds have grown.' Dr. Semisch (Bvang. United, successor of Dr. Neander
16 THE CREKDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
At the same time, it must bo admitted that the very simplicity and
brevity of this Creed, which so admirably adapt it for all chinnes of
Christians and for public worship, make it insufficient as a regulator of
public doctrine for a more advanced stage of theological knowledge,
As it is confined to the fundamental articles, and expresses them in
plain Scripture terms, it admits of an indefinite expansion by tho scien-
tific mind of the Church. Thus the Nicene Creed gives clearer and
stronger expression to the doctrine of Christ's divinity against tho Ari-
ans, the Athanasian Creed to the whole doctrine of the Trinity and of
Christ's person against the various heresies of the post-Nicene «j*o.
The Reformation Creeds are more explicit on the authority and inspi-
ration of the Scriptures and the doctrines of sin and grace, which are
either passed by or merely implied in the Apostles' Creed.
II. As to the ORIGIN of the Apostles' Creed, it no doubt gradually
grew out of the confession of Peter, Mati xvi. 1 6, which furnished its
nucleus (the article on Jesus Christ), and exit of the baptismal formula,
which determined the trinitarian order and arrangement. It can not
be traced to an individual author. It is the product of the Western
Catholic Church (as the Nicene Creed is that of the Eastern Church)
within the first four centuries. It is not of primary, apostolic, but of
secondary, ecclesiastical inspiration. It is not a word of God to men,
but a word of men to God, in response to his revelation* It was orig-
inally and essentially a baptismal confession^ growing out of tho inner
life and practical needs of early Christianity.1 It was explained to the
in Berlin) concludes hia recent essay on the Creed (p. 28) with the word* : * It JH in itH primi-
tive form the most genuine Christianity from the mouth of Christ himtialf (</a« dfifAtorft (.'hrit-
tenthum <tu$ dcm A/unfa Christi wlltst).' Dr. Nevin (Germ. Reformed, Mercerth. /?«». 18-M,
p. 204): *The Cieed is the substance of Christianity in tho form of faith * , . the direct im-
mediate utterance of the faith itself/ Dr. Shedd (Presbyterian, Hint. Cftrutf. Itorfr., II.
438) : * The Apostles' Creed is the earliest attempt of the Christian mind to systematic the
teachings of the Scripture, and is, consequently, the uninspired foundation upon which the
whole after-structure of symbolic literature rests. All creed development proco«d« from thin
germ,' Bishop Browne (Kpincopalian, Jfijcp, 80 Art*, p. 222): * Though this Oread wtw not
drawn up by the apostles themselves, it may well be called Apostolic, both tis containing the
doctrines taught by the apostles, and as being in substance the same as wan uned in the Church
from the times of the apostles themselves, ' It is the only Creed used in the baptismal service
of the Latin, Anglican, Lutheran, and the Continental Reformed Churches, In the Protestant
Episcopal and Lutheran Churches the Apostles' Creed is a part of the regular Sunday wwvicct,
and is generally recited between the Scripture lessons and the prayers, expre««ing n8«cut to
the former, and preparing the mind for the latter.
1 Tertullian, Z>6 corona militum^ c, It : 'JDtMnc, ter wtirgitctmwr, AKPUIW ALIQUID RKsrON-
DJBNTES, guam Dominus in JSvangelio determinavit." The amplius respondent.?* refers ,to til*
§ 7. THE APOSTLES' CREED. 17
catechumens at the last -stage of their preparation, professed by them
at baptism, often repeated, with the Lord's Prayer, for private devotion,
and afterwards introduced into public service.1 It was called by the
aiito-Nicono fathers 'the rule of faith,' 'the rule of truth,' 'the apostolic
tradition/ 'the apostolic preaching,' afterwards 'the symbol of faith.52
.But this baptismal Creed was at first not precisely the same. It as-
sumed different shapes and forms in different congregations.3 Some
were longer, some shorter; some declarative, some interrogative in the
form of questions and answers.4 Each of the larger churches adapted
Creed, not aa something different from the Gospel, but as a summary of the Gospel. Comp.
/)<? bapt.9 c, G, where Tertullian says that in the baptismal Creed the Church was mentioned
after confessing the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.
1 Augustine (Op., cd. Boned., VI. Serm. 58): lQuando surgitis, quando vos ad somnum col-
lotwtis, rcddite Symbolum vestrwn; reddite Domino. . . . Ne dicatis, Dixi fieri, dixi hodie,
quotidie dlco, teneo illud bene. Commamora Jidem twm : inspice te. Sit tanquam speculum
tibi Symbolum tuum. Ibi te vide si credis omnia quw te credere conjiteris, et gaude quotidi*
in fide tun.1
* Kav&v TW 7riore<uc, K- rfc a\rj&6ia£, irapatioffic dTroaroXueff, rb apxcuov rrjg iicjcXqtriag, <rtf-
onj/ta, regulafidei, reg. veritatis, traditio apostolica, prcedicatio ap., fides cntholica, etc. Some-
times these terms are used in a wider sense, and embrace the whole course of catechetical
instruction.
3 See the older regultvfid<>i mentioned by Irenocus : Contra hwr., lib. I. c. 10, § 1 ; III, c. 4,
§ 1,2; IV. c. IJJJ, § 7; Tortullian : D(\ vvlandfo virginibus, c. 1 j Adv. Praxeam, c. 2; JDeprce-
seript. httret., c. 18; Novatianurt: JJe trinitale s. de regulajidei (tMbl P. P., ed. Galland.III.
iJ87); (lyprian: JKp. ad Afnt/nnm^ and JKp. ad Jannarium, etc. ; Orison : De principiui, I.
pwf. § 4-10; Const. Apost. VI. 11 and 14. They are given in Vol. II. pp. 11-40; also
by Binghatn, Walch, Ilahn, and Heurtley. I select, as a specimen, the descriptive ac-
count of Tertullian, who maintained against the heretics very strongly the unity of the
traditional faith, but, on the other hand, also ugainst the Koman Church (as a Monta-
nist), the liberty of discipline and progress in Christian life. £>e velandis virginibus, c. 1 :
*Re,gula qwdemjidei una omnino est, sola immobolis et irreformabilis, CREDKNDI scilicet IN
tmiotTM DKUM OMNII»OTKNTBM, mundi conditorem, BT FXLIUM BJUS JBSUM CHRISTUM, NATUM
BX VIIIGINM MARIA, CRUOIFIXUM SUB PONTIO PlLATO, TKRTIA BIB RBSUSOITATUM A MORTUI8,
KBOKinrUM INT CCJKLIH, 8HDKKTBM NUNO AD DBXTBRAM PATRIS, VBNTURUM JUD10ARB VI VOS KT
MORTKIOS, per OAUNifc) etiam RKSUURKOTIONBM. Ifac legejidei manente cetera jam discipline
et conversationist admit tunt novitatem corrections, operante scilicet et proficients usque infinem
gratia Dei.1 In his tract against Praxeas (cap. 2) he mentions also, as an object of the rule
of faith, ' £Sjptrt^iim Sanctum, paracletum, sanctificatoremfidei eorum qui credunt in Patrem et
/ 'ilium et Spiritum Sanctum.1 We may even go further back to the middle and the beginning
of the second century. The earliest trace of some of the leading articles of the Creed may be
found in Ignatius, JSpistola ad Trallianos^ c. J) (ed. Hefele, p. 192), where he says of Christ that
he was truly born * of the Virgin Mary' (rov IK Mapiac, 8<r a\ij$$>g iywvifiii), * suffered under
Pontius Pilate' (a\ri&&e tdu*>x&n M llovriav HcXdrov), ' was crucified and died' (aXij&flf
j Kal an&avev), and *was raised from the dead' (&c «?«< 4X^c fyep&ij atrb VMQ&V,
aMv rov irarpbfr aftrov). The same articles, with a few others, can be traced in
Justin Martyr's Apol. I. c. 10, 13, 21, 42, 4(>, 50.
4 Generally distributed under three heads : 1 . Credis in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, etc. ?
Kes(p. Credo. 2. Credis et in Jesum Christum^ etc, ? Resp. Credo. 3. Credis et in Spiritum
18 TUB CRBKIXS OF CUKI»TKN1>OM.
the nudeus of the apostolic faith to its peculiar circumstances anu
wants; but they all agreed in the essential articles of faith, in the gen-
eral order of arrangement on the basis of the baptismal formula, and
in the prominence given to Christ's death and resurrection. We have
an illustration in the modern practice of Independent or ( )ongivgalional
and Baptist churches in America, where the same liberty of framing par-
ticular congregational creeds (' covenants/ as they are called, or forms
of profession and engagement, when members arc received into full
communion) is exercised to a much larger extent than it wan in the
primitive ages.
The first accounts we have of these primitive creeds are merely frag-
mentary. The ante-Nicene fathers give UB not the exact and full for-
mula, but only some articles with descriptions, defenses, explications,
and applications. The creeds were committed to memory, but not to
writing.1 This fact is to be explained from the * Secret Discipline' of
the ante-Nicene Church. From fear of profanation and misconstruc-
tion by unbelievers (not, as some suppose, in imitation of the ancient
heathen Mysteries), the celebration of the sacraments and the baptismal
creed, as a part of the baptismal act, were kept secret among the com-
municant members until the Church triumphed in the .Roman Umpire.2
The first writer in the West who gives us the text of the Latin creed,
with a commentary, is Kxifinus, towards the close of the fourth eontury.
The most complete or most popular forms of the baptismal creed in
use from that time in the West were those of the churches of Rome,
Aquileja, Milan, Ravenna, Carthago, and Hippo. They differ but
Sanctum, etc. ? Reap, Credo. See the interrogative Creeds in Murtcne, De antiyuit ttcclcsia
ritibus, 1, 1. c. 1, and in Heurtley, 1. c, pp. 108- 116.
1 Hieronymus, JSp. 61 , adPamm&ch. t 'Symbolumjidti *t *pei nottrw, quod ah upoxtotts trad-
itwn,non scribitur in charta et atr&mtinto, tied in tahulis cvrdk camalibiit.* AugtiKtlne, *V<rm.
ccxii, 2 : 'Audi en do symbolum ducitur, nee. in tabulis ml in aliqua maturity #<?d in corde *crt&-
tter.'
* On the Discipline araani comp. my Church fK$tM% 1.884 aq,, and HemiHcht On the Ap,
Creed, p. 17, who maintains, with others, that the Apontlen' Creed existed in full aa a part
of the Secret Discipline long before it was committed to writing.
3 See these Nicene and post-Niceno Creeds in Hahn, L c. pp. 8 sqq., and in Heurtloy, t c. 4*1
sqq. Augustine (and pseudo- Augustine) gives eight exposition of the Symbol, and mewionH,
besides, single articles in eighteen passages of his workn. Sec Canpari, 1, c. II. *M4 «q. He
follows in the main the (Ambrosian) form of the Church of Milan, which agrees BubHttmtially
with the Roman. Twice he takes the North African Symbol of Carthage for a battta, which
has additions in the first article, and puts the article on the Church to the close (t?i/«w wttr-
nam per tanctam ecclesiam). We have also, from the Nicene and poat-Niceno age, several
§ 7. THE APOSTLES' CREED. 19
Among these, again, the Roman formula gradually gained general ac-
ceptance in the West for its intrinsic excellence, and on account of the
commanding position of the Church of Rome. We know the Latin
text from Rutinus (390), and the Greek from Marcellus of Ancyra (336-
341). The Greek text is usxially regarded as a translation, but is prob-
ably older than the Latin, and may date from the second century,
when the Greek language prevailed in the Roman congregation.1
This Roman creed was gradually enlarged by several clauses from
older or contemporaneous forms, viz., the article c descended into
Hades' (taken from the Creed of Aquileja), the predicate * catholic' or
* general,' in the article on the Church (borrowed from Oriental creeds),
'the communion of saints' (from Gallican sources), and the concluding
'life everlasting' (probably from the symbols of the churches of Ra-
venna and Antioch).2 These additional clauses were no doubt part of
the general faith, since they are taught in the Scriptures, but they were
firat expressed in local creeds, and it was some time before they found
a place in the authorized formula.
If we regard, then, the present text of the Apostles' Creed as a com-
plete whole, we can hardly trace it beyond the sixth, certainly not be-
yond the close of the fifth century, and its triumph over all the other
forms in the Latin Church was not completed till the eighth century,
or about the time when the bishops of Rome strenuously endeavored
to conform the liturgies of the Western churches to the Roman order.3
commentaries on the Creed by Cyril of Jerusalem, Rufinus, Ambrose, and Augustine. They
do not give the several articles continuously, but it is easy to collect and to reconstruct them
from the comments in which they are expounded. Cyril expounds the Eastern Creed, the
others the Western. Rufinus takes that of the Church of Aquileja, of which he was presbyter,
at* the basis, but notes incidentally the discrepancy between this Creed and that of the Church
of Rome, ao that we obtain from him the text of the Roman Creed as well. He mentions
earlier expositions of the Creed, which were lost (In Symb. § 1).
1 Bee Caspari, Vol. III. pp. 28-1GK
8 The last clause occurs in the Greek text of Marcellus and in the baptismal creed of Anti-
och (/cat t(Q ufJLapritiv <Sty>€<r«> /cat c/g vwp&v avdvrctfftv KUL ci? £<i>i}p aiwviov). See Caspari,
Vol. I. pp. 88 sqci.
9 Heurtley says (1. c. p. 126) : * In the course of the seventh century the Creed seems to
have been approaching more and more nearly, and more and more generally, to conformity
with the formula now in use ; and before its close, instances occur of creeds virtually identical
with that formula. The earliest creed, however, which I have met with actually and in all
respects identical with it, that of Pirminius, does not occur till the eighth century ; and even
towards the close of the eighth, A.D. 785, there is one remarkable example of a creed, then
in use, which retains much of the incompleteness of the formula of earlier times, the Creed of
Ktherius UxamonsiH.' The oldest known copies of our present taxtus rec,eptus are found in
manuscripts of works which can not be traced beyond the eighth or ninth century, viz., in a
* Psalter ium Onvmm Greyorii MagniS preserved in the Library of Corpus Christi College,
20 THE CttKEDS OK CHU1STKNDOM.
But if wo look at the several articles of the < Vee<l separately, they are
all of Kicene or untc-Niecnc origin, while its kernel ^oes hack to the
apostolic ago. All the facts and doctrinoB which it contain**, are in en-
tire agreement with the New Testament. And this t« true even of
those articles which have been most aBBailed in recent time*, as the
supernatural conception of our Lord (comp. Matt. i. IS ; Luke i. ttfO, the
descent into I Jades (comp. Luke xxiii.43; Acts ii. #1 ; 1 Pet. iii. 19; iv.f>),
and the resurrection of the body (1 Oor. xv. 20 wj<jMan«l other pla<*<»«).1
The rationalistic opposition to the Apostles' Oreed and its tme in
the churches is therefore an indirect attack upon the New Testament
itself. But it will no doubt outlive these assaults, and share in the
victory of the Bible over all forms of unbelief.'1
Cambridge, and first published by Abp. Usher, 1047 (nine by Hourtley, 1. c. p. Hii), and Another
in the '.lAbelha Pirminii [who died 758] de singulist libris ruimnfri* warttjwu*' ( <W/rr/jfx),
published by Mabillon ^Anuievt^ Tom. IV. p. f>7#). The first contains the < Yt»«d in Latin
and Greek (both, however, in Roman letters), timing i*1 two parallel columns; th« second
gives first the legend of the Creed with the twelve article** assigned to tho twelve) upo*tUw» ami
then the Latin Creed as used in the baptismal service. See Ilourtloy, p. 71.
1 The same view of the origin of the Apostles' Creed is held by tho latent writcra on the
subject, as Halm, Heurtley, Caspari, Stickler, Semiseh, Xocklor nays (1, <\ p. 1 8) : * Aw /i/wr-
toticum lift hinsichtlivh seiner jetsfyen Form wwo/il uac/ut/wstodsch) tits ttrtbat ntwJu
after hinsichtlich seines Inhalts i$t e$ nicJit tntr vorawfustinisrh* somhrn ganx utul yur
toliaeh — in diesen einfachen Satz Uisst die Summe d?r <rinsrM8ffiffrn fcrttiwh
Forschungsergehm$se sick kurzarhand xwammimdrlingtm. Und die Wahrhrit tliwt &t
towdt er die Apotttolirit&t des Inhtdts twhauptct) l&wf sic/i bfstftytfrh jetit* rinwlnen (tticdc*
am s/)8tc$ten Mnzuffckommpncn nfaht nuggrnumnu'tt, wit ///riVA»v» *SiV//rr'Ar*V
Semisch traces the several articles, sej>aratoly considered t up to tlw third find
second centuries, and the substance to the first. Kr. Spanlicim and Calvin did tho name*.
Calvin says : 'Nequt, jrdht dufrinm e$t, qm'n a prinui statim w/cjwVr wit/in^ tutou/tir nh i/wv
Apostolorum serulo imttir publirm <?f omnium Calcutta rwqtttp twifratittitis vbtimn'rit' (,/fMt.
lib. II. c. 1 0, § 18). The most oluhornto argnmont for tho wirly origin \* given !>y ( 'nspwi, who
derives the (Jreed from Asia Minor in ihu beginning of ilwhwoiulnMUun (Vol. HI, pp. I Mil).
aThe discussion of tho Apostles* Orood ontorod a stago of grout warmth uftor Dr.
Schaff's death, 1893. Tho work by KattonbuBoh, tho most oxttmHivo and oxhauntivi* <m
tho subject, was followed by treatments from the prow of Hurnack, C!remcr, Zuhu, Loofn,
Kunze, and others in Germany, Burn, and Badoock, 1980, iu England and Mc<Hn*ort in
the United States. Tho early Roman baptismal formula i« oarriod by Htirmirk ati<l
Mirbt to 150 or earlier, aud by Kattenbusch and Zahn to 120 or oarlior. A, H(u«l)org
found the clauses in tho Now Testament writings and hdd that a eroudnl fommlti WUH
in use in Apostolic times. McGiffort, who was followed by Krttgor, propoHocl tho theory
that tho formula was a reply to tho heresies of Marcion about HJO. Btulnook oppcuww
tho view of Kattcnbusch, Harnack, and Burn on tho origin of tho ApoutloB' Crwwl, relying
in part upon Irenaous's recently found troatiao, *'Tho toacihing of tho ApontliM." The
renewed study of tho Apostles1 Crood was followed by a now study of tho doctrine of th<^
Virgin birth of Christ in view of tho omission of tho clause "oomwivod by th« Holy OhoKt "
in tho forms of tho Rule of Faith known to us and lha statomcnfc of tho twrly Uonmti
baptismal formula, "born of tho Holy Ghost and tho Virgin Mary.'* Tho mtwi rm»nl
treatise on tho Virgin birth is by Machon, The Virgin Birth of Vhrtott N. Y., H)«t)*— Ki>
§ 7. THE APOSTLES' CREED. 21
III. I add a table, with critical notes, to show the difference between
the original Roman creed, as given by Rirfiims in Latin (about AJD.
390), and by Manillas in Greek (A.D. 336-341), and the received form
of the Apostles' Creed, which came into general use in the seventh or
eighth century. The additions are inclosed in brackets.
THK ou> ROMAN FOBM. TUB RKOKIVKD FORM,
"i. I believe in Goo THE FATHER Almighty.1 1. 1 believe in GOD THK FATHER Almighty
[Maker of heaven and earth"].*
2. And in JESUS CHRIST, his only Son, our 2. And in JESUS CHRIST, his only Son, our
Lord ; Lord ;
3. Who was born by the Holy Ghost of the 3. Who was [owetiW] by the Holy Ghost,
Virgin Mary ;3 born of the Virgin Mary ;*
4. Was crucified under Pontius Pilate and 4. [Sujferedy under Pontius Pilate, was cru-
was buried ; cified [decuf], and buried
[He descended into JUelf (Hades)'] ;6
5. The third day he rose from the dead ; 5. The third day ho rose from the dead ;
C. He ascended into heaven ; and sitteth on G. He ascended into heaven ; and sitteth on
the right hand of the Father ; the right hand of [God"] the Father
[Almighty];1
7. From thence he shall come to judge the 7. From thence lie shall come to judge the
quick and the dead. quick and the dead.
8. And in the HOLY GHOST; 8. [/ believe]* in the HOLY GHOST ;
1 The Creed of Aquileja has, after Patrem ornnipottntem, the addition : * invisibilem et im~
passibifam,' in opposition to Habellianism and Patripassianism. The Oriental creeds insert
one, before (tod. Marcollus omits Father, and roads ds &tbv iruvroKparopa.
* 'Creatorew cveti et terro? appears in the Apostles' Oeed from the close of the seventh
century, but was extant long before in ante-Nicene rules of faith (Iremmis, Adv. hwr. I. c. 10,
1; Tertullian, />« ud. wV<y. c. l^rnundi conditoran ;' lh> printer, hwret. c. 1JQ, in the Nicene
Creed (Trotrjr/)*' ovpavov KM yw, /e.r.A.), and all other Eastern creeds, in opposition to the
Gnostic schools, which made a distinction between the true God and the Maker of the world
(the Demiurge).
3 'Ci«t natus est de Spiritu Sancto ex (or et) Maria virgin?,.1
* *^MI CONCKPT0S est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria virgin?.' The distinction between
conception and birth first appears in the Sermones de Tempore, falsely attributed to Augus-
tine.
* '/taw*,' perhaps from the Nicene Creed (TraS-ovra, which there implies the crucifixion).
In some forms i crucffixus, ' in others * mortuus* is omitted.
* From the Aquilejan Creed: ^Descendit ad infernnj or, as the Athnnasian Creed has it,
6 ad inferoti,' to the inhabitants of the spirit-world. Some Kastern (Arinn) creeds: Karkfin
tl^rov $8i)v (also €t'c rd jcara^ovia, or «/c T& Karwrara), Augustine says (A)>. 99, nl. 1C4-,
§ JJ) that unbelievers only deny 'fuisse apudinferos Christum.9 Venantius Fortunatus, A.D.
570, who had Rufinus before him, inserted the clause in his creed. Rufinus himself, how-
ever, misunderstood it by making it to mean the same as fowled (§ 18: * vis vwlri eadem vi-
detur esse in eo quod sejmltns dicitur).
7 The additions VM'J and * omnipottntis,' made to conform to article first, are traced to the
Spanish version of the (-reed as given by Ktherius Uxamensis (bishop of Osma), A.D. 785,
but occur already in earlier Gallican creeds. See Heurtley, pp. GO, 07.
* 'Credo,* in common use from the time of Petrus Chrysologus, d. 450. But And, wit'nom.
the repetition of the verb, is no doubt the primitive ibrm, as it grew immediately out of the
baptismal formula, and gives clearer and closer expression to the doctrine of the Trinity.
22 THE CKEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
TUB OLD ROMAN FOKM. Tire KKOHIVXD FORM.
9. The Holy Church ; 0. The Holy [Orf/WtY]1 Church
[jf/if communion of saints]',*
10. The forgiveness of sins ; 10. The forgiveness of sins ;
11. The resurrection of the bodv (flesh).3 11 . The resurrection of the body (flesh) ;
12. [And the lift everlasting].*
NOTE OK THK LEGKND OP THE APOSTOLIC ORIGIN OF TUN CIIKKI>.— Till the middle of
the seventeenth century it was the current belief of Roman Catholic and Protestant Christen-
dom that the Apostles' Creed was * membratim articulatimqud composed by the apostles in
Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, or before their separation, to secure unity of teaching,
each contributing an article (hence the somewhat arbitrary division into twolvc articles)/
Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, commenced : *1 believe in Ood the Father
Almighty;' Andrew (according to others, John) continued : 'And in Jesus Christ, his only
Son, our Lord;' James the elder went on: '"Who was conceived by the Holy CihoHt;' then
followed John (or Andrew): '{Suffered under Pontius Pilate;' Philip: 'Descended into
Hades;' Thomas: *The third day he rose again from the dead;' and so on till Mat thins
completed the work with the words 4 life everlasting. Amen.'
The first trace of this legend, though without the distribution alluded to, we find at the
close of the fourth century, in the JExpositio Symboti of liufinus of Aquilcja. He mentions
an ancient tradition concerning the apostolic composition of the Creed {'treuhmt mttjort*
nostri'), and falsely derives from this supposed joint authorship the name symbolon (from
cunpd\\tiv, in the sense to contribute] ; confounding erv/j/30Aoy, sign, with cn'jwpoX//, confribu^
tion CSymbolnm Greece et indicium did potest e,t collatio, hoc est, quod ptures in unum rwj/fc-
runf}. The same view is expressed, with various modifications, "by Ambrosius of Milan (d. <W),
in his Explanatio Symboli ad initiandos, where he says: 'Apostoli sanrti ronrenirntesjftce.-
runt symbolum breviter ;' by John Cassianus (about 424), 2)e iiicarnat, /Juw.VI. tt; Leo M»,
JSp. 27 ad Pulcheriam ; Venantius Fortunatus, Expos, brews Symbol i Ap, ; Isidorus of Seville
(d. 636). The distribution of the twelve articles among the apostles is of later date, and
there is no unanimity in this respect. See this legendary form in the psendo- August inian
'1 (universal), in accordance with the Nicene Creed, and older Oriental form»»
was received into the Latin Creed before the close of the fourth century (comp. Augustine :
De Fide et Symbolo, c. 10). The term catholic, as applied to the Church, occurs tat in the
Epistles of Ignatius (AdSmyrnceos, cap. 8 : wo-Trcp oirov av y Xptrrrbs 'h;<ro<"i,'» ImZ >/ KCt&o\iKt)
and in the Martyriuw Poly carpi (inscription, and cup. 8 : dirfatie rfc Kara rt}v
Ka&oXiKijc, bKK\qaia£, comp. c. 19, where Christ is called TTOI/O/V rffc K&T& oticov-
3 The article c Commumonem sanctorum,' unknown to Augustine (JiV/ur. c. G4-, and 6Vrm.
213), appears first in the 1 loth and 1 18th Sermons JOe Tempore, falsely attributed to him. It
is not found in any of the Greek or earlier Latin creeds. See the note of Pearson On the 6W^/»
Art. IX. sub * The Communion of Saints1 (p. 525, ed. Dobson), Heurtley, p. HO, brings it
down to the close of the eighth century, since it is wanting in the Creed of KtliorJus, 785.
The oldest commentators understood it of the communion with the saints m heaven, but
afterwards it assumed a wider meaning : the fellowship of all true believers, living and de-
parted.
3 The Latin reads carnis, the Greek eaptcog, flesh; the Aquilejan form HUJtrs ozmfo, O/THXS
flesh (which is still more realistic, and almost materialistic), * ut possit caro ml pudica cow-
nari, vel impudica puniri' (Rufimis, § 43). It should be stated, however, that there are two
other forms of the Aquilejan Creed given by Wnlch (xxxiv. and xxxv.) and by Heurtley (pp.
30-32), which differ from the one of Rufitms, and are nearer the Roman form.
4 Some North African forms (of Carthage and Hippo Regius) put the article of the Church
at the close, in this way: 'vitam, eternam per sanctam ecdesictm.' Others: mrnis resurrec-
tionem in vitam aternam. The Greek Creed of Marcellus, which otherwise agrees with the
old Roman form, ends with £w*)v aluviov.
4 The old Roman form has only eleven articles, unless art. 6 be divided into two ; while
the received text has sixteen articles, if 'Maker of heaven and earth,' 'He descended into
Hades,' 'the communion of saints,' and 'the life everlasting/ are counted separately,
§ 7. Tim APOSTLES' CREED. 23
fiermones dc. Symbolo, in Hahn, 1. c. p. 124, and another from a Sewramentarium Gallicanum of
the seventh century, in Heurtley, p. <>7.
The Roman Catechism gives ecclesiastical sanction, as far as the Roman Church is con-
cerned, to the fiction of a direct apostolic authorship.1 Meyers, 1. c., advocates it at length,
and Abbe Martigny, in his l Dictionnaire des antiquities Chrttiennes,' Paris, 1865 (art. Sym-
bol?, dc* apdtres, p. (>2tt), boldly asserts, without a shadow of proof : 'Fidekment attache a la
tradition de r/Cytite cathoRque, nous tenons, non-seulement quit tst Vwuvre des apdtres, mai*
swore qu'ilfut compost pur eux, alors gue r€unis a Jerusalem, Us allaient se disperser dans
Vunivcrs cntler ; et quails volurent, avant de se stparer, fixer une regie defoi vraiment uniforme
et Mtholique, destine a 6tre Iivr4e, partout la mfane, aux cat&humenes.1
Even among Protestants the old tradition has occasionally found advocates, such as Les-
sing (1778), Delbriick ( 1 826), Rudelbach ( 1 844), and especially Grundtvig (d. 1 872). The last
named, a very able but eccentric high-church Lutheran bishop of Denmark, traces the Creed,
like the Lord's Prayer, to Christ himself, in the period between the Ascension and Pentecost.
The poet Longfellow (a Unitarian) makes poetic use of the legend in his Divine Tragedy
(1871).
On the other hand, the apostolic origin (after having first been called in question by Lau-
rentius Valla, Erasmus, Calvin a) has been so clearly disproved long since by Vossius, Rivetus,
Voetius, Usher, Bingham, Pearson, King, Walch, and other scholars, that it ought never to be
seriously asserted again.
The arguments against the apostolic authorship are quite conclusive :
1 . The intrinsic improbability of such a mechanical composition. It has no analogy in the
history of symbols ; even when composed by committees or synods, they are mainly the pro-
duction of one mind. The Apostles' Creed is no piece of mosaic, but an organic unit, an
instinctive work of art in the same sense as the (Jloria in JSjerelsis, the Te Deum, and the
classical prayers and hymns of the Church.
2. The silence of the Scriptures. Some advocates, indeed, pretend to find allusions to the
Creed in Paul's * analogy' or 'proportion of faith,' Rom. xii. 7 ; * the good deposit,' 2 Tim. i.
14; 'the first principles of the oracles of God,' Heb. v. 12; 'the faith once delivered to the
saints,* Jude, vei\ JJ; and lthe doctrine,' 2 John, ver. 10; but these passages can be easily ex-
plained without such assumption.
3. The silence of the apostolic fathers and all the ante- Nicene and Nicene fathers and
synods. Kven the oecumenical Council of Nicuea knows nothing of a symbol of strictly apos-
tolic composition, and would not have dared to supersede it by another.
4. The variety in form of the various rule* of faith in the ante-Nicene churches, and of the
Apostolic Symbol itself down to thft eighth century. This fact is attested even by Rufinus, who
mentions the points in which the Creed of Aquileja differed from that of Rome. 'Such varia-
tions in the form of the Creed forbid the supposition of any fixed system of words, recognized
and received as the composition of the apostles ; for no one, surely, would have felt at liberty
to alter any such normal scheme of faith.'3
5. The fact that the Apostles' Creed never had any general currency in the East, where the
Nicene ("reed occupies its place, with an almost equal claim to apostolicity as far as the sub-
stance is concerned.
4 Pars prima, cap, 1, qu. 2 (Libri Symbolic* JEccl. Oath,, ed. Streitwolf and Klener, Tom. I.
p. 1 11) : '<^wn igitur primum Ohristiani homines tenere debent, ilia stunt, quwjidei duces, doc-
toresque sanc.ti Apo&toli, diirino Spiritu a,fflati^ duodefiim Symbol* articulis distinxerunt. Nam,
cum mandatum a Domino accepissent, ut pro ipso legations fungentes, in universum mundum
projiciucerentur) atque oinni c.reaturc& JSvanffdium pr&.dicarent : Christiana Jidei formulam
componendam wwufirunt, ut scilicet id omnes sentirent ar, dicerent, neque ulla, essent inter eo$
scMsmataJ etc. Ibid. qu. 8 : 'Emc autem Christiana* Jidei et spei professiomm a se composi*
tam Apostoli Symbolum appellarunt ; sive guia ex variis sententiis, quas singuli in commune
contulerunt, conftata est ; sive quia ea veluti note, et tessera quadam uterentur, qua desertores
et subintroductasffikosfratres, qui ttvangelium adulterabant, ab iis, qui verce Christi militias
Sacramento se obligarent^facilepossent internoscere.1
9 In his Catechism, Calvin says that the formula of the common Christian faith is called
aymbolum apostokrum, quod vel ab ore apostohrum excepta fuerit, vet ex eorum scriptis Jide-
liter collec.ta.
8 Dr. Nevin (1. c. p, 107), who otherwise puts the highest estimate on the Creed. See the
comparative tables on the gradual growth of the Creed in the second volume of this work,
VOL. L— 0
24: THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
§ 8. THE NICENE CKEED.
Literature.
I. See the works on the oecumenical Creeds noticed p. 12, and the extensive literature on the Council
of Nicaea, mentioned in my Church History, Vol. III. pp. 616, 617, and 622. The acts of the Council arc*
collected in Greek and Latin by MANBI, Collect, sacr. ConciL, Tom. U. fol, 686-704. The Council of Nitwn
is more or less rally discussed in the historical works, general or particular, of Tillemont, WnlcH,
Schrockh, Gibbon, A. de Broglie, Neauder, Gieseler, Baur (Hist, of the Doctrine of the Trinity), Dorner
(History of Chr fetology), Hefele (History of Councils), Stanley (History of the JKastern Church).
II. Special treatises on the Nicene symbol :
PH. MELANOHTHON : Explicatw Symb. Nicceni, ed. a J. Sturione,Vitob. 1561, 8vo.
GASP. CBUOIGEB: JEJnarrationis Symboli Nicceni articuli duo, etc.,Viteb. 1548, 4to, and ffymtoU Nicwni
enarratio cum prcpfatione Ph. Melavwhthonis, acc.priori editioniplures Symboli partes, Basil (without dnt«).
J. H. HEIDEGGER (d.1698): De Symboto Nte(mo-C<yn#fantinopolitmo (Tom.HZtfapttfcttteftfcpp.no aoq..
Turici, 1675-97).
J. G. BAIEB: De Cone. Nicceni primi et oecum. auctoritate atgue integritate, Jen. 1605 (in Diqputat thettt.
decad. I).
T. FKOHT: Innocentia Concilii et Symboli Nicceni, Rostock, 1711.
T. CASPAR SUIOEB (d. 1684) : Symbolum Niccmo-Constant. evpositum et ex antiquitate eceletiaetica illm-
tratum, Traj. ad Rh. 1718, 4to.
GEOEGK BULL (d. 1710) : Defensfo Fidei Niccence, Oxon. 1687, in his Latin works ed. by Grabe» 1708 ; by
Burton, 1827, and again 1846 ; English translation in the Angto-Catholie Library, Oxf. 1851, 2 vols.
The NIOENE CREED, or SYMBOLTTM NTO^NO-CONSTANTINOPOLITANUMJ IK
the Eastern form of the primitive Creed, but with the distinct impress
of the Nicene age, and more definite and explicit than the Apostle^
Creed in the statement of the divinity of Christ and the Holy Ghost,
The terms c coessential' or c coequal' (o^ooifcnog rcjj 7rar/>(), c begotten be-
fore all worlds' (wpb iravruv r&v alwvwv), c very God of very God'
aAi7&u;oc ffc S-€ou aXrj&tvoi}), c begotten, not made' (yevwj&a'c, ov 7r
are so many trophies of orthodoxy in its mighty struggle with the Arian
heresy, which agitated the Church for more than half a century. The
Nicene Creed is the first which obtained universal authority. It rests
on older forms used in different churches of the East, and has under-
gone again some changes.1
The Eastern creeds arose likewise out of the baptismal formula, and
were intended for the baptismal service as a confession of the faith of
the catechumen in the Triune God.2
We must distinguish two independent or parallel creed formations
1 Compare the symbols of the church of Jerusalem, the church of Alexandria, and tho
creed of Csesarea, which Eusebius read at the Council of Nicaja, in Usher, 1. c, pp. 7, 8 • moro
fully in Vol. II. pp. 1 1 sqq., and in Hahn, Bibliothek der Symloh, pp. 40 sqq., i)l sqq.'
a Eusebius, in his Epistle to the people of Osarea, says of the creed which he had proposed
to the Council of Nicaea for adoption, that he had learned it as a catechumen, profiled it at
his baptism, taught it in turn as presbyter and bishop, and that it was derived from our Lord's
baptismal formula. It resembles the old Nicene Creed very closely ; see Vol. II p 20 The
shorter creed of Jerusalem used at baptism, as given by Cyril, Catee/i, xix. 0, ie aimply the
baptismal formula put interrogatively; see Hahn, pp, 51 sqq.
§ 8. THE NICJENE CREED. s 25
an Eastern and a Western ; the one resulted in the Nicene Creed as
completed by the Synod of Constantinople, the other in the Apostles'
Creed in its Roman form. The Eastern creeds were more metaphys-
ical, polemical, flexible, and adapting themselves to the exigencies of the
Church in the maintenance of her faith and conflict with heretics; the
Western were more simple, practical, and stationary. The former were
controlled by synods, and received their final shape and sanction from
two (xicumenical Councils ; the latter were left to the custody of the
several churches, each feeling at liberty to make additions or altera-
tions within certain limits, until the Eoman form superseded all others,
and was quietly, and without formal synodical action, adopted by West-
ern Christendom.
In the Nicene Creed we must distinguish three forms — the original
Niccne, the enlarged Goiistaiitiziopolitaii, and the still later Latin.
1. The original Nicene Creed dates from the first oecumenical Coun-
cil, which was held at Nicsea, AJD. 325, for the settlement of the Arian
controversy, and consisted of 318 bishops, all of them from the East
(except llosius of Spain). This Creed abruptly closes with the words
* and in the Holy Ghost,' but adds an anathema against the Allans.
This was the authorized form down to the Council of Chalcedon.
2. The Nicseno-Constantinopolitan Creed, besides some minor
changes in the first two articles,1 adds all the clauses after flloly
Ghost,' but omits the anathema. It gives the text as now received in
the Eastern Church. It is usually traced to the second oecumenical
Council, which was convened by Theodosius in Constantinople, A.D.
381, against the Macedonians or Pneumatomachians (so called for de-
nying the deity of the Holy Spirit), and consisted of 150 bishops, all
from the East. There is no authentic evidence of an oRoumenical
recognition of this enlarged Creed till the Council at Chalcedon, 451,
where it was read by Aetius (a deacon of Constantinople) as the
4 Creed of the 150 fathers,' and accepted as orthodox, together with
the old Niceno Creed, or the f Creed of the 318 fathers.' But the ad-
ditional clauses existed in 374, seven years before the Constantino-
politan Council, in the two creeds of Epiphanius, a native of Pales-
1 The most remarkable change in the first article is the omission of the words TQVTWTIV IK rfo
obffiaQ row llarpfa &tbv IK 3-fov, o~* which great stress was laid by the Athanasian party against
*he Allans, who maintained thai die Son was not of the essence, but of the will of the Father.
26 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
tine, and most of them as early as 350, in the creed of Cyril of Je-
rusalem.1
The Nicene Creed comes nearest to that of Eusebiua of Oamrea,
which likewise abruptly closes with TrvmfAa ayiov, the CouBtantino-
politan Creed resembles the creeds of Cyril and Epiphamua, which
close with < the resurrection' and < life everlasting.' We may therefore
trace both forms to Palestine, except the Nicene homoousion.
3. The Latin or Western form differs from the Greek by the little
word Filiogue, which, next to the authority of the Pope, is the chief
source of the greatest schism in Christendom. The Greek Church,
adhering to the original text, and emphasizing the monarchic of the
Father as the only root and cause of the Deity, teaches the single
procession (l/cTropfva/c) of the Spirit from the Father alone, which is
supposed to be an eternal inner-trinitarian process (like the eternal
generation of the Son), and not to be confounded with the temporal
mission (ni^ig) of the Holy Spirit by the Father and the Son. The
Latin Church, in the interest of the co-equality of the Son with the
Father, and taking the procession (processio) in a wider sense, taught
since Augustine the double procession of the Spirit from the Father
and the Son, and, without consulting the East, put it into the Creed.
The first clear trace of the Filioque in the Nicene Creed we find at
the third Council of Toledo in Spain, A.D. 589, to seal the triumph of
orthodoxy over Arianism. During the eighth century it obtained cur-
rency in England and in France, but not without opposition. Pop<a
Leo III., when asked by messengers of a council held during the reign
of Charlemagne at Aix la Chapelle, A.D. 809, to sanction the Filivque,
decided in favor of the double procession, but against any change in the
Creed. Nevertheless, the clause gained also in Italy from the time of
Pope Nicholas I. (858), and was gradually adopted in the entire Latin
Church. From this it passed into the Protestant Churches.8
Another addition in the Latin form/Deus de Deo] in article II., ere-
1 See Vol. II. pp. 31-88, and the Comparative Table, p. 40; lumby, p. 08; and Hort,
pp. 72-150. Dr. Hort tries to prove that the * Gonstantinopolitan ' or Kpiplianian Creed in
not a revision of the Nicene Creed at all, but of the Creed of Jerusalem, and that it dates
probably from Cyril, about 362-364, when he adopted the Nicene Aomoovsia, awl mn.v have
been read by him at the Council of Constantinople in vindication of his orthodoxy. Ffoulken
(in Smith's Diet, of Christ. Antiq. Vol. I. p. 438) conjectures that it was framed at Antioch
about 372, and adopted at the supplemental Council of Constantinople, 382.
* Comix Vol. II.. at the close.
§ 8. THK NICENE CREED. 27
atod no difficulty, as it was in the original Nicene Creed, but it is use-
ICBIS on account of the following 'Deus verus de Deo veroj and hence
was omitted in the Oonatantinopolitan edition.
The Nicene Creed (without these Western additions) is more high-
ly honored in the Greek Church than in any other, and occupies the
same position there as the Apostles' Creed in the Latin and Protestant
ChurchoB. It is incorporated and expounded in all the orthodox Greek
and Russian Catechisms. It is also (with \hsFilioque) in liturgical use
in the Roman (since abcmt the sixth century), and in the Anglican and
Lutheran Churches.1 It was adopted by the Council of Trent as the
fundamental Symbol, and embodied in the Profession of the Tri den-
tine Faith by Pius IV. It is therefore more strictly an oecumenical
Creed than the Apostles' and the Athanasian, which have never been
fully naturalized in the Oriental Churches.
... * The faith of the Trinity lies,
Shrined for ever and ever, in those grand old words and wise ;
A gem in a beautiful .setting ; still, at matin-time,
The service of Holy Communion rings the ancient chime ;
Wherever in marvelous minster, or village churches small,
Men to the Man that is God out of their misei7 call,
Swelled by the rapture of choirs, or borne on the poor man's word,
Still the glorious Nicene confession unaltered is heard ;
MoHt like the song that the angels are winging around the throne,
With their " Holy ! holy ! holy 1" to the great Three in One.'*
The relation of the Nicene Creed to the Apostles' Creed may be seen
from the following table :
TiiK AtOBTLW' OBKBD; REOKIVHD TJBXT. TIIK NIOHNB Cnw>, AS DNT.ABGEI) A.D. 881.
(The clauses iu brackets are the Inter additions.) (The words in brackets are Western changes.)
1. I believe in GOP THK FATHUU Almighty, 1. We [I] believe3 in ONE GOD THE FATHER
Almighty,
[Maker of heaven and earth]. Maker of heaven and earth,
And of nil things visible and invisible.
2. And in JESUS CHRIST, Ms only Son, oar 2. And in one Lord JESUS CHRIST,
Lord ; the only-begotten Son of God,
Begotten of the Father before all worlds ;
[God of God],
Light of Light,
Very God of very God,
1 In the Reformed Chnrcbes, except the Episcopal, the Nicene Creed is little need. Calvin,
who had a very high opinion of the Apostles' Creed, depreciates the Nicene Creed, as a * car-
men cantillando mngis aptum, quam confemonis formula* (De Reform. JKvchs,}*
a From *A Legend of the Council of Nice,' by Cecil Frances Alexander, in 'The Contem-
porary Raview' for February, 1867, pp. 176-179.
1 The Greek reads the plural (triffr^ofuv), but the Latin and English versions have substi-
tuted for it the singular (wedo, I believe), in accordance with the Apostles' Creed and the
more subjective character of the Western churches.
28 THE CREEDS OF CHKISTEKDOM.
THE APOSTLES' CREED ; RECEIVED TEXT.
3. "Who was [conceived] by the Holy Ghost,
Born of the Virgin Mary ;
4. [Suffered] under Pontius Pilate, was cru-
cified [dead], and buried ;
[He descended into Hades] ;
5. The third day he rose again from the dead ;
6. He ascended into heaven,
And sitteth on the right hand of [God]
the Father [Almighty] ;
7. From thence he shall come to judge the
quick and the dead.
8. And [I believe] in the HOLY GHOST •
9. The holy [catholic] Church ;
[The communion of saints] ;
10. The forgiveness of sins ;
THE NIOBNJB CKKKD, AS ENLABOEP A.D.881.
Begotten, not made,
Being of one substance with the Father ;
By whom all things were mnde ;
3. Who, for us men, and for our Htiivution,
came down from heaven,
And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of
the Virgin Mary,
And was made man ;
4s. He was crucified for us under Pontius
Pilate;
And suffered and was buried ;
# * # # *
5. And the third day ho rose again,
According to the Scriptures ;
6. And ascended into lioaven,
And sitteth on the right hand of the Fa-
ther;
7. And he shall come again, with glory,
to judge the quick and the dead;
Whose kingdom shall have no end.
8. And [I believe] in the HOLY GHOST,
The Lord, and Giver of life ;
Who proceedeth from the Father
[and the Son] ;
Who with the Father and the Son together
is worshiped and glorified j
Who spake by the Prophets,
9. And [I believe] in1 one holy catholic and
apostolic Church ;
* # * # *
10. We [I] acknowledge3 one baptism for the
remission of sins ;
11. And we [1] look for the resurrection of
the dead ;
12. And the life of the world to come.
11. The resurrection of the flesh [body] ;
12. [And the life everlasting].
We give also, in parallel columns, the original and the enlarged
formulas of the Nicene Creed, italicizing the later additions, and
inclosing in brackets the passages which are omitted in the received
text:
CEBBT> OF 826.3
We believe in one God, tl 3 FATHER Al-
mighty, Maker of all things visible and in-
visible.
THE CONSTAKTtNOPOMTAW OnBKD OF 881>
We believe in one God, the KATHKII Al-
mighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of
all things visible and invisible.
1 The Greek reads tic piav . . . lKK\q<riav, but the Latin and English versions, in conformity
with the Apostles' Creed, mostly omit in before ecclesiam ; see p. 1 5.
3 Here and in art. 11 the singular is substituted in Western translations for
3 The Greek original is given, together with the similar Palestinian confession, by Eusebius
in his Epistola ad Gcesareenses, which is preserved by Athanasius at the close of hi* Jfyittol*
de decretis Synodi Niccence (Opera, ed. Montfaucon, I. 239); also, with some variations, in
the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Act, II. in Mansi, Tom. VII.) ; in Theoderet, // JS. I,
12 ; Socrates, H. E. I. 8 ; Gelasius, H. Cone. NIC. I. II. c. 35. See the literature and varia-
tions in Walch, 1. c. pp. 75 and 87 sqq. ; also in Hahn, L c. pp. 105 sqq.
* The Greek text in the acts of the second oecumenical Council (Mansi, Tom. III. p. r>(J5 j
Hardouin, Vol. L p. 814), and also in the acts of the fourth oecumenical Council. See Vol. IL
p. 35 ; Hahu, 1. c. p. 1 II ; and my (J/iurch Hist. Vol. III. pp. (>67 sqq.
§ 9. THK OUEKD OF CtlALCHDON.
29
TUB NIORNX (>RKKI> OP 326.
And in one Lord JKHUS ("HIUST, the Son
of (Joel, begotten of the Father [the only-be-
gotten ; that is, of the essence of the Father,
God of GodJ, Light of Light, very (Jod of
v«ry God, begotten, not made, being of one
substance ( Inioodffiov') with the Father; by
whom all things wore made [both in heaven
uuti on earth J ; who for us men, and for our
Kalvation, tuune down and was incarnate and
was made man ; he suffei'ed, and the third
day lie rose again, ascended into heaven ;
from thence ho shall come to judge the quick
and the dead.
And in the HOLY GHOST.
TlIK CONHTA.MTINOPOI.ITAN CttKKT) OF 381.
And in one Lord JPHUH CHKIST, the only-
begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father
before all worlds (coons;, Light of Light, very
God of very God, begotten, not made, being
of one substance with the Father ; by whom
all things weie made; who for us men, and for
our salvation, came down t/w« hetirtm, and
was incarnate by f/i(> Holy (J/wttt of the Viryin
Mary, and was' made man ; he watt crucified
for 'tis under Pout inaPt late, and suffered, and
\va$ buried, and the third day ho rose again,
according to the tiiriptwesi and ascended into
heaven, and siltttt/i on the riyht hand of the
Fdlher ; from thence he shall come again, with
glory, to judge the quick and the dead ; whose
kingdom shall have no end.
And in the HOLY GHOST, the Lord and
Giver of life, who proceedrth from the Father,
who with the Father and the Son tot/ether is
worshiped and glorified, who spake by the
prophets. In one holy catholic and apostolic
Church ; we acknowledge one baptism for the
remission of sins; we look for the resurrection
of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
Amen.
[But those who say: 'There was a time
when he was not ;' and 4 He was not before
he was made;' and £ He was made out of
nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or
fc essence/ or *Tho Son of God i.s created,' or
'changeable,' or 'alterable' — they are con-
demned by the holy catholic and apostolie
Church.]
§ 9. THE CjREicr) OF CHALCEDON.
literature.
The A eta Cmwtlii in the colloctfonn of MANSI, Tom. VII., and of HAUPOTJIN, Tom. IX
EYAUUIUH: tttotmrfa feel, lib. II. c. 2,4, 18.
FAOUNDUH (Bishop of Ilermtauo, iu Africa) : Pro cttfew. tritm capitutorum, lib. V. c. 8, 4; lib. VIII. c. 4
(see Gnlhindl, mil. /'/*, Toin. XI. pp. 718 wqq,)'
LtuttRATUB (Archdeacon of Carthage) : JBrevfarium causes Nestorianorum et Kutychtononwi, c. 18 (Gal-
lamli, Tom, XII. pp, 142 aqq.).
BAKONIUH : A mutt, ad ann. 451 , No. 55 aqq.
EDM. KKMKU : Hi*t. condL yeneraUum, Paris, 1080 (Amst. 1080, 3 voK), lib. I. c. 8.
Tu.LBMON'1': JlMiMrirM, etc. Tom.XV. pp, 0'48 «qq. (In the tirticlo on Loo the 0*reat),
NATAWB AI,KXANI>BR: Hist, oedett. sec. V, Tom. V. pp. 04 sqq. and pp. 209 nqq.
QVKHNRL: Nynatwto actorum Cone. Cliakedon., in his Dissertat. de vita, etc., & Leonis (see the Ballerlal
edition of the works of Loo the (front, Tom. II. pp. 501 sqq.)-
lIlii.8KMANN : Ewrdt, cut Condi, Chalcedvn. Lipw. 1651,
OAVB: tttet. literarict, etc. pp. 811 sqq. ed. Ooucv. 1705.
WAI.OH : Jft}tMrAtatorfo,Vol. VI. p. 829 sq. ? and hie TIMorfe tier Kimhenvwacmmlvngen, p. 807 sq.
ABMNDT: Papttt Im tier Grow, Mainx, 1885, pp. 267-322.
DOBNBR: Btetory of the Development of tlw Dwtr. of the Pfrtmn of ChrfM (ad Germ, crt.), Part II. 99-150.
HBFJSLK: tttotory of the Council*, Freiburg, Vol. II. (1850), p. 802 sq.
ISoKA?*1 : History of the Christian Church, N.Y. 1867, Vol. III. pp. 740 Htm. Oomp. the 11 toraturo there on
pp. 708 sq., 714 eq., 722.
The ORKED of OIIALOKDON was adopted at the fourth and fifth ses-
sions of the fourth oecumenical Council, held at Chalcedon, opposite
Constantinople, A.D. 451 (Oct. 22d and 25th). It embraces the Nictteno-
Oonstantiuopolitan Creed, and the christological doctrine set forth in
30 THE CREEDS OF CHBISTENDOM,
the classical JEpistola Dogmatica of Pope Leo the Great to Flavian,
the Patriarch of Constantinople and martyr of diophyaitio orthodoxy
at the so-called Council of Bobbers (held at Epheaus in 449).1
While the first Council of Nicaea had established the eternal, pro-ex-
istent Godhead of Christ, the Symbol of the fourth oecumenical Council
relates to the incarnate Logos, as he walked upon earth and bits on the
right hand of the Father. It is directed against tlie errors of NcBtorhis
and Eutyches, who agreed with the Nicene Creed as opposed to Arian-
ism, but put the Godhead of Christ in a false relation to IUB humanity.
It substantially completes the orthodox Christology of the ancient
Church ; for the definitions added during the Monophysite and Mono-
thelite controversies are few and comparatively unessential. As the
Nieene doctrine of the Trinity stands midway between Tri theism and
Sabellianism, so the Chalcedonian formula strikes the true mean be-
tween Nestorianisin and Eutychianism.
The following are the leading ideas of the Chalcedonian Christology
as embodied in this symbol :2
1. A true INCARNATION of the Logos, or the second person in the God-
head (Ivav&jOWTnjtne Seov, Iva-a/oKWcnc TOV Aoyou, inco/nittttt) Verbi!)?
This incarnation is neither a conversion or transmutation of God into
man, nor a conversion of man into God, and a consequent absorption
of the one, or a confusion (jc/>a<nc> <yvyyym^) of the two ; nor, on the
other hand, a mere indwelling (ivo/jci?<nc> inhabitatio) of the one in the
ether, nor an outward, transitory connection (awa^aa, conjunctio) of
the two factors, but an actual and abiding union of the two in one per-
sonal life.
2. The precise distinction between NATUEE and PERSON. Nature or
substance (essence, ovma) denotes the totality of powers and qualities
which constitute a being ; while person (vTrrfaracnCj TrpoauTrov) is the
Ego, the self-conscious, self-asserting and acting subject. The Logos
assumed, not a human person (else we would have two persons, a divine
and a human), but human nature which is common to us all ; and hence
he redeemed, not a particular man, but all men as partakers of the same
nature.
1 Comp. my Church Hist.'Vol III. p. 738.
* Abridged, in part, from my Church History, Vol. III. pp. 747 sqq.
3 The diametrical opposite of the ivavSrpwTnjffis -9-*ov is the heathen
§ !). THE CREED OY CIIIALCEDON. 31
3. Tlio GOD-MAN as the result of the incarnation. Christ is not a
(Nestorian) double being, with two persons, nor a compound (Apollina-
rian or Monophysite) middle being, a tertium gwd, neither divine nor
human ; but he is one person loth divine and human.
4. The DUALITY OF THE NATURES. The orthodox doctrine maintains,
against Eutychianism, the distinction of nature even after the act of
incarnation, without confusion or conversion (ao-vyxvrwc* inconfuse,
and arjOCTTrwe, immutabiliter\ yet, on the other hand, without division
or separation (aSiaiplrwg, indivise, and axw/otorwe, inseparabiliter\ so
that the divine will ever remain divine, and the human ever human,1
and yet the two have continually one common life, and interpenetrate
each other, like the persons of the Trinity.2
5. The UNITY OF TIIE PERSON (2i/o>ar£c KaS? vzrooTCKnv, svaxng viroarariKYi,
<u>nio hypostatica or unio personalis). The union of the divine and
human nature in Christ is a permanent state resulting from the incar-
nation, and is a real, supernatural, personal, and inseparable union — in
distinction from an essential absorption or confusion, or from a mere
moral union, or from a mystical union such as holds between the be-
liever and Christ The two natures constitute but one personal life,
and yet remain distinct. * The same who is true God,' says Leo/ is also
true man, and in this unity there is no deceit ; for in it the lowliness of
man and the majesty of G-od perfectly pervade one another. . . . Be-
cause the two natures make only one person, we read on the one hand :
"The Son of Man came down from heaven" (John iii. 13), while yet the
Son of God took flesh from the Virgin ; and on the other hand : " The
tJ says Leo, in his Epist. 28 ad Flavian., 'sine defectu proprietatem suam utrague
natura, et mutformaw servi Dei forma non adimit, itaformam Dei servi forma non minuit.
. . . Affit utraque forma cum alterius communione qwd proprittm est ; Verio scilicet operante
quod Verbi est> et carne exsequente quod carnis est, Unum horum coruscat miracutis, aliud
$uccumbit injuriis, Et $ir.ut Verbum db o&qualitate paternos fflorice non recedit9 ita caro natvr
ram nostri generis non relinqwt,'
a Here belongs, in further explanation, the scholastic doctrine of the irspi>x&pv)<rtQ, per-
meatiot ftircummeatio^ drculatio, tirvumincessio, intercommunio, or reciprocal indwelling and
pervasion, which has relation, not merely to the Trinity, but also to Ohristology. The
verb irfptxvptiv is first applied by Gregory of Nyssa (Contra ApotKnarwm) to the interpent
tration and reciprocal pervasion of the two natures in Christ. On this rested also the doc-
trine of the exchange or communication of attributes, avritiowGfdvnutrdtfraaifrKowu via idiu-
pctTuv, commnnicatio idiomatum. The avniMTaorainc r&v ovo^aruv^ also di/ri^^iorracric,
tran$mutatio proprietatum, transmutation of attributes, is, strictly speaking, not identical with
c, but a deduction from it, and the rhetorical expression for it.
CBEEDS Olf CHRISTENDOM.
Son of God was crucified and buried/'1 while yet he suffered, not in his
Godhead as coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, but in the
weakness of human nature.' The self-consciousness of Christ in never
divided ; his person consists in such a union of the human and the
divine natures, that the divine nature is the seat of self-consciousness,
and pervades and animates the human.
6. The whole WORK of Christ is to be attributed to his person, and
not to the one or the other nature exclusively. The person is the act-
ing subject, the nature the organ or medium. It is the one divine-
human person of Christ that wrought miracles by virtue of his divine
nature, and that suffered through the sensorium of his human nature.
The superhuman effect and infinite merit of the Redeemer's work must
be ascribed to his person because of his divinity ; while it is his human-
ity alone that made him capable of, and liable to, toil, temptation, suf-
fering, and death, and renders him an example for our imitation.
7. The ANHYPOSTASIA, IMPERSONALITY, or, to speak more accurately,
the ENHYPOSTASIA, of the human nature of Christ;2 for anhypostasia is
a purely negative term, and presupposes a fictitious abstraction, since
the human nature of Christ did not exist at all before the act of the
incarnation, and could therefore be neither personal nor impersonal.
The meaning of this doctrine is that Christ's human nature had no
independent personality of its own, besides the divine, and that the
divine nature is the root and basis of his personality.3
There is, no doubt, a serious difficulty in the old orthodox Christol-
ogy, if we view it in the light of our modern psychology. We can
conceive of a human nature without sin (for sin is a corruption, not
an essential quality, of man), but we can not conceive of a human
nature without personality, or a self-conscious and free Ego ; for this
distinguishes it from the mere animal nature, and is man's crowning
excellency and glory. To an unbiased reader of the Gospel history,
1 Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 8 : « They would not have crucified the Lord of glory/
3 'AvvKoffrctTos is that which has no personality in itself, ivvjrforaroQ that which subsists
in another personality, or partakes of another hypostasis.
3 The doctrine of the impersonality of the human nature of Christ may already bo found as
to its germ in Cyril of Alexandria, and was afterwards more fully developed by John of
Damascus (De orthodoxa Jide, lib. III.), and by the Lutheran scholastics of the seventeenth
century, who, however, did not, for all this, conceive Christ as a mere generic being typifying
mankind, but as a concrete human individual. Comp. Petavius, De incarnation^ lib. V. c. 5-8
(Tom. IV. pp. 421 sqq. ) ; Thomasius, ChristoL II. 108-1 10 ; Kothe, Dogmatik, II. £1 and 147
§ 9. THE CREED OF CHALCEDON. 33
moreover, Christ appears as a full human personality, thinking, speak-
ing, acting, Buffering like a man (only without sin), distinguishing him-
self from other men and from his heavenly Father, addressing him in
prayer, submitting to him his own will, and commending to him his
spirit in the hour of death.1 Yet, on the other hand, he appears just as
clearly in the Gospels as a personality in the most intimate, unbroken,
mysterious life-union with his heavenly Father, in the full consciousness
of a personal pre-existence before the creation, of having been sent by
the Father from heaven into this world, of living in heaven even during
this earthly abode, and of being ever one with him in will and in es-
sence.2 In one word, he makes the impression of a theantkrogic, divitie-
hwiriMi person.3 His human personality was completed and perfected
by being so incorporated with the pre-existent Logos-personality as to
find in it alone its full self -consciousness, and to be permeated and con-
trolled by it in every stage of its development.
The Chalcedonian Christology has latterly been subjected to a rigor-
ous criticism (by Schleiermacher, Baur, Dorner, Kothe, and others), and
has been charged with a defective psychology, and now with dualism,
now with docetism, according as its distinction of two natures or of the
personal unity has most struck the eye. But these imputations neutral-
ize each other, like the imputations of tritheism and modalisrn, which
may be made against the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity when either
1 lie calls himself a ' man,' av&puiroc (John viii, 40 ; comp. xix. f>), and very often * the Son
of man,' and other men his 'brethren' (John xx. 1 7).
8 John viii. 58 ; xvii. 5, 24 ; iii. 11-13 ; v. 37 ; vi. #8, 02 ; viii. 42 ; x. 30, and many other
passages in the Gospels. Dr. U. Rothe, who rejects the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and
the Incarnation, yet expressly admits (Dogmatik, U. 88) : ''Ebcnso btstimMt, wie seine wahre
JMfrnacMrft, triU im Neuen Testament auch die wahrfi GOTTKKXT des JSrlb'sers hervor.' To
escape the orthodox inference of an incarnation of a divine hypostasis, Ifotlie must resort (p.
100) to the JSocinian interpretation of John xvii, 5, where the Saviour asserts his pre-existence
with the Father (86%acr6v fjLs crit, irarfp, Trap a creavrty ry #«£j?, $ tlftov irpb rov rbv icoff/tov
dvcu Trap A o-o/); thereby distinguishing himself from the hypostasis of the Father, and yet
asserting coeternity. The Socinians and Grotius find hero merely an ideal glory in the divine
counsel ; but it must be taken, in analogy with similar passages, of a real, personal, aelf-con-
scious pre-oxLstence, and a real glory attached to it ; otherwise it would be nothing peculiar
and characteristic of Christ. How absurd would it be for a man to utter such a prayer !
3 A persona ?tfvdcrog, in the language of the old Protestant divines. 'Divina et kumana
natural (says Ilollaz), * in una persona oruv&lr^ Filii Dei existentes, unam eandemque habent
vTroaraviv, modo tamen habendi diversam. Natura enim divina earn habet primario, per se et
independenter, natura autem Kumana secundario, propter unionem personalem, adeoque partici-
pative,' The divine nature, therefore, is, in the orthodox system, that which forms and con*
jtitutes the personality (das personbildende Princip.).
34 THE CEEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
the tri-personality or the consubstantiality is taken alone. This, indeed,
is the peculiar excellence of the Creed of Ohalcedon, that it exhibits so
sure a tact and so wise a circumspection in uniting the colossal anti-
thesis in Christ, and seeks to do justice alike to the distinction of the
natures and to the unity of the person. In Christ all contradictions are
reconciled.
The Chalcedonian Creed is far from exhausting the great mystery
of godliness, c Grod manifest in flesh.5 It leaves much room for a fuller
appreciation of the genuine, perfect, and sinless humanity of Christ, of
the Pauline doctrine of the Senosis^ or self-renunciation and self-lim-
itation of the Divine Logos in the incarnation and during the human
life of our Lord, and for the discussion of other questions connected
with his relation to the Father and to the world, his person and hifl
work. But it indicates the essential elements of Christological truth,
and the boundary-lines of Christological error. It defines the course
for the sound development of this central article of the Christian faith
so as to avoid both the Scylla of Nestorian dualism and the OharybdiB
of Eutychian monophysitism, and to save the full idea of the otio divine-
human personality of our Lord and Saviour. Within those limits theo-
logical speculation may safely and freely move, and bring us to clearer
conceptions ; but in this world, where we 'know only in part (k pf/xwc),'
and 'see through a mirror obscurely (8«* i<r(J7rr/>ov lv alvfy/um),' it will
never fully comprehend the great central mystery of the thoanthropic
life of our Lord.
§ 10. THE ATHANASIAN ORBED.
Literature.
I. Comp. the general literature of the Three Creeds noticed p. 12, especially LUMKY and SWAINBON.
II. Special treatises on the Athanasian Creed :
[VaNAwnus FORTTTNATUS (Bishop of Poitiers, d. about A.D. 000)] : Expotitto Fidei Cathotieite Portunatt,
The oldest commentary on the Athauasian Creed, published from a MS. in the Ambroaiun Library at
Milan by Muratori, 1698, in the second vol. of his Anecdota, p. 228, and better in an Appendix to Water-
land's treatise (see below). But the authorship of Ven. Fort, is a mere conjecture of Muratori, from the
name Fortunatits, and is denied by modern critics.
DAT. PABEUS (Ref.) ; Symbolwn Athanasii breviter declaratum. Heidelb. 1018*
J. H. HBIDEGGEB (Ref.) : JDe Symbolo Athanasiano. Tur. 1680.
W. E. TKNXZEL (Luth.) : Judicia eruditorwm tie Symb. Athanaaiano. Gothoe, 1087.
Jos. ANTHELMI (R. C.) : DisquisUio de Symb. Athan. Paris, 1098.
MONTFAUCON (R. 0.) : Diatribe de Symbolo Quicunque, in hie edition of the works of St. Athauadoe.
Paris, 1698, Tom. II. pp. 719-735.
DAN. WATBELAND (Anglican) : A Critical History of the Atfwnaston, Creed, etc, Cambridge, 1724, 2d e&
1728 (in Waterland's works, VoL III. pp. 97-270, Oxf. ed. 1848), also re-edited by J. E. King, Lond. 1871*
The fullest and most learned treatise on the subject, but in part superseded by recent iuveetigatlonB,
Do*. MARIA SPBBONI (R. C.) : De Symbolo vulgo S. Atiianarii, two dissertations. Patav. 1750 eq.
JOHN BAVCLIFFR: The Creed of Si. Athanasius, illustrated from the Old and Xew Test,, Postages of the
father *, etc. Lond. 1844,
§ 10. THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 35
PHILIP SOHAFF: The A thanaafan O«?e?, in the * American Presbyterian Review,' New York, for 1866,
pp. 684-625 ; Church History, Vol. III. pp. 689 sqq.
A. P. STANLKY (Dean of Westminster) : The Athana&ian Creed. Loncl. 1871.
E. S. FFOULKKB (B. D.) : The Athanartan Creed: By whom Written and by whom Published. Lond. 18T2.
Cn. A. HKUIITLKY : Th* A thanaaian Creed. Oxford, 1872. (Against Ffonlken.)
Comp, the fac-ftimilo edition of the Utrecht Psalter (Loud. 1875), and SirTnos. HARDY (Deputy-Keeper of
the Public Kecorda), two ReporU on the Athanas. Creed in Connection with the Utrecht Psalter. Lond. 1873,
The ATIIANASIAN OKKKD is also called SYMBOLUM QUIOUNQUE, from
the first word, 'Quicunque vult salvus esse?1
I. Its ORIGIN is involved in obscurity, like that of the Apostles' Creed,
the Gloria in Excelsis, and the Te Deum, It furnishes one of the most
remarkable examples of the extraordinary influence which works of
unknown or doubtful authorship have exerted. Since the ninth cen-
tury it has been ascribed to Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, the chief
defender of the divinity of Christ and the orthodox doctrine of the
Trinity (d. 373).2 The great name of ' the father of orthodoxy' secured
for it an altnost cecximenical authority, notwithstanding the solemn pro-
hibition of the third and fourth cocumenical Councils to compose or
publish any other creed than the Nicene.3
Since the middle of the seventeenth century the Athanasian author-
ship has been abandoned by learned Catholics as well as Protestants.
The evidence against it is conclusive. The Symbol is nowhere found
in the genuine writings of Athanasius or his contemporaries and eulo-
gists. The General Synods of Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and
Chalcedon (451) make no allusion to it whatever. It seems to presup-
pose the doctrinal controversies of the fifth century concerning the
constitution of Christ's person ; at least it teaches substantially the
Ghaleedonian Christology. And, lastly, it makes its first appearance in
the Latin Churches of Gaul, North Africa, and Spain : while the Greeks
1 It first bears the title, 'Fides sanctas Trinitatte,' or ''Fides Catholic.a Sanrtt*
then (in the *6W. Usserius wmtndzts ') 'Fides Samti Athanusii AhmndriniS Hincmar of
liheims, about A.I). 852, calls it ''Serwonem Athanasii de Jide, vujus irdtiuin est: "'Quit
cunque vult salvus esse."'
a According to the mediaeval legend, Athananius composed it during his exile in Rome, and
offered it to Pope Julius as his confession of faith. ISo Baronius, Petavius, Bellarmin, etc,
This tradition was first opposed and refuted by Gerhard Vossius (1642) and Ussher (1047).
9 Cone. Ephes. Can. VII. c The holy Synod has determined that no person shall be allowed
to bring forward, or to write, or to compose any other Creed (trspav irwriv wdsvi t&cVai
?Tj000!|OB»' tfyovv wyypaftw r) vvvritokvai'), besides that which was settled by the holy fathers
who assembled in the city of Nicasa, with the Holy Spirit. But those who shall dare to com-
pose any other Creed, or to exhibit or produce any such, if they are bishops or clergymen,
they shall be deposed, but if they are of the laity, they shall be anathematized. 1 The Council
of Chalcedon (451), although setting forth a new definition of faith, repeated the same pro-
hibition (after the Dejin* /\'cfe»).
3g THK CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
did not know it till the eleventh century, and afterwards rejected or
modified it on account of the Occidental clause on the procession ot
the Holy Ghost from the Father ami the Son. The Greek texts, more-
over, differ widely, and betray, by strange words and constructions, the
hands of unskilled translators.
The pseudo-Athanasian Creed originated in the Latin Church from
the school of St. Augustine, probably in Gaul or North Africa. It
borrows a number of passages from Augustine and other Latin fa-
thers.1 It appears first in its full form towards the close of the eighth
or the beginning of the ninth century. Its structure and the repetition
of the damnatory clause in the middle and at the close indicate that it
consists of two distinct parts, which may have been composed by two
authors, and afterwards welded together by a third hand. Tho first
part, containing the Augustinian doctrine of the Trinity, is fuller and
more metaphysical. The second part, containing a summary of the
Chalcedonian Christology, has been found separately, as a fragment
of a sermon on the Incarnation, at Treves, in a MS. from the middle
of the eighth century.2 The fact that Athanasius spent some time in
exile at Treves may possibly have given rise to the tradition that the
great champion of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity composed
the whole.3
1 See the parallel passages In Waterland's treatise and in my Church /7ttfory,Vol. III. pp.
690 sqq.
3 Now known as the Colbertine MS., in Paris, which is assigned to about A.I). 730-700,
but is derived in part from older MSS. This fragment was first published consecutively by
Professor Swainson in 1871, and again in his larger work, 1875 (p. 202), also by Lumby, p.
215. It begins thus: ' JEst ergo fides recta ut credanms et coqfitmw qma Dominus ilmm
christus Deifitius, deus pariter et homo es*,' etc.; and it ends: */fc estjides ww.ta etUa-
tholica. guam omnes [omnis] homo qui ad uitam ceternam peruenire deMerat sdre int&grm
\_integre] debet. etfideliter custodireS The compiler of the two parts intensified the damna-
tory clause by changing it into ' guam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque, rrw&V/m'f, aafpw <*S$A
non poterit.' The passages quoted by Archbishop Hincmar of Khoirns, A,l). 85 !>, arc all
taken from the first part.
3 The authorship of the Symbolum Quicunque is a matter of more conjecture. Tho opinion*
of scholars are divided between Hilary of Aries (420-431), Vigilius of TapsuR (•!«!). Viwon-
tius Lirinensis (450), Venantius Fortunatus of Poitiers (570), Pope Annstusius ( !M, VietrioiuH
of Houen (401), Patriarch Puulintis of Aqnilejn (Cliarlomn^nftV favorite thooln^itiu, d. 804).
Waterland learnedly contends for Hilary of Aries; Qup.wiel, C«vo, Hin^hnm, «i\«l Ncander
for Vigilius Tapseusis of North Africa. Gieseler traces tlie Qui"HHqm> to th« Councils of
Toledo in Spain (683, 638, 675, etc.), which used to profess the Nicene < Yoed with additional
ai tides (like the Filioque) against Arianism. FfbulkeR (who Receded to Home, and returned,
a better Protestant, to the Church of England) and Dean Stanley maintain that it arose in
France, simultaneously with the forgery of the pseudo-Isidorean Decretals, for controversial
§ 10. THE ATHANASIAN CKJEED. 37
II. CHARACTER and CONTENTS. — The Symbolum Quicunque is a re-
markably clear and precise summary of the doctrinal decisions of the
first four oecumenical Councils (from A.D. 325 to A.D. 451), and the
Augustinian speculations on the Trinity and the Incarnation. Its brief
sentences are artistically arranged and rhythmically expressed. It is a
musical creed or dogmatic psalm. Dean Stanley calls it £a triumphant
l>«oau' of the orthodox faith. It resembles, in this respect, the older
Te JDeum, but it is much more metaphysical and abstruse, and its har-
mony is disturbed by a threefold anathema.
It consists of two parts.
The first part (ver. 3-28) sets forth the orthodox doctrine of the Holy
Trinity, not in the less definite Athanasian orNicseno-Constantinopolitan,
but in its strictest Augustinian form, to the exclusion of every kind
of subordination of essence. It is therefore an advance both on the
purposes against the Greeks, to set up a fictitious antiquity for Latin doctrine (the Fitiogue),
as the Decretals did for Latin polity, Swainson and Lumby assign the Creed to an un-
known writer of the age of Charlemagne (d. 814) and Alcuin (d. 804), or to the period be-
tween 813 and 8fiO.
The latest investigations since the rediscovery of the oldest (the Cotton) MS. in the
* Utrecht Psalter' (which wus exposed for inspection at the British Museum in 1873, and has
since been photographed) are unfavorable to an early origin ; for this MS. , which Ussher and
Waterland assigned to the sixth century, dates probably from the ninth century (as the ma-
jority of scholars who investigated it, Drs. Vermuelen, Heurtley, Ffoulkes, Lumby, Swainson,
contend against Hardy, West wood, and Baron van Westreenen), since, among other reasons,
it contains also the Apostles' Creed in its final form of 7/50. The authorship of Venantius
Fortunatus (570) was simply inferred by Muratori from the common name ' JF ortunatus ' at
the head of a MS. (JKxpositio Fidei Catholicce Fortunati) which contains a commentary on the
Athanasian Creed, but which is not older than the eleventh century, and quotes a passage
from Alcuin. Two other MSS. of the same commentary, but without a title, have been
found, one at Florence, and one at Vienna (Lumby, p. 208 ; . Swainson, pp. 317 sqq.). The
internal evidence for an earlier date is equally inconclusive. The absence of Mater Dei
(&tor6Koe) no more proves an ante-Nestorian origin (before 481, as Waterland contended)
than the absence of consubstantiatis (6/*oov<riof) proves an ante-Nicene origin.
So far, then, wo have no proof that the pseudo-Athanasian Creed in its present complete
tfiape existed before the beginning of the ninth century. And yet it may have existed earlier.
At all events, two separate compositions, which form the groundwork of our Quicungue, are
of older date, and the doctrinal substance of it, with the most important passages, may be
found in the works of St. Augustine and his followers, with the exception of the damnatory
clauses, which seem to have had their origin in the fierce contests of the age of Charlemagne,
In a Prayer-Book of Charles the Bald, written about A.D. 870, we find the Athanasian Creed
very nearly in the words of the received text.
I may add that the indefatigable investigator, Dr. Caspari, of Christiania, informs me by
letter (dated April 20, 1 876) that he is still inclined to trace this Creed to the fifth century,
between 450 and COO, and that he found, and will publish in due time, some old symbols
which bear a resemblance to it, and may cast some light upon its obscure origin. Adhuc
mljudice Us eft.
38 THE CRUHCDS OF
Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed; for these do not wtato the
doctrine of tlie Trinity iu form, but only indirectly by teaching the*
Deity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and leave room for a curtain
subordination of the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both
The post-Athanasian formula states clearly and mnuistakably both tho
absolute unity of the divine being or essence, and the tri-personality of
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God is one in three persons
or hypostases, each person expressing the whole fullness of the God-
head, with all his attributes. The term persona is taken neither in the
old sense of a mere personation or form of manifestation (Trpfowirov,
face, mask), nor in the modern sense of an independent, separate being
or individual, but in a sense which lies between these two conceptions,
and thus avoids Sabellianisrn on the one hand, and Tritheism on the
other. The divine persons are in one another, and form a perpetual
intercommunication and motion within the divine essence.1 Each
person has all the divine attributes which are inherent in the divine
essence, but each has also a characteristic individuality or property ,a
which is peculiar to the person, and can not be communicated ; the
Father is unbegotten, the Son begotten, the Holy Ghost is proceed-
ing. In this Trinity there is no priority or posteriority of time, no su-
periority or inferiority of rank, but the three persons are coeternal and
coequal.
If the mystery of the Trinity can be logically defined, it fa done hero.
But this is just the difficulty : the infinite truth of the Godhead lien far
beyond the boundaries of logic, which deals only with finite truths and
categories. It is well always to remember the saying of Augustine :
'God is greater and truer in our thoughts than in our words; he is
greater and truer in reality than in our thoughts.53
1 The later scholastic terms for this indwelling and interpenetration are irtpix&pnmv, inex-
istentia, permeatio, circumincessio, etc. See my Church History, Yol. III. p. G80.
8 Called by the Greeks tfcorqg or Wiov, by the Latins proprietas per&onalis or character %-
postaticus.
3 'Verius cogitatur Deus guam dicitur, verius eat quam cogitatwrj De THnttote, lib. VI L
c. 4, § 7. Dr. Isaac Barrow, one of the intellectual giants of the Anglican Church (died
1677), in his Defense of the Blessed Trinity (a sermon preached on Trinity Sunday, 1663),
humbly acknowledges the transcendent incomprehensibility, while clearly stating the facts,
of this great mystery : « The sacred Trinity may be considered either as it is in itself wrapt
up in inexplicable folds of mystery, or as it hath discovered itself operating in wonderful meth-
ods of grace towards us. As it is in itself, 'tis an object too bright and dazaling for our weak
eye to fasten upon, an abyss too deep for our short reason to fathom j I can only say that wo
§ 10. THE AT1IANAS1AN CREED. 39
The second part (vcr. 20-44) contains a succinct statement of the
orthodox doctrine concerning the person of Christ, as settled by the
general Councils of Ephesus 431 and Ohalcedon 451, and in this respect
it is a valuable supplement to the Apostles' and Niccne Creeds. It as-
serts that Christ had a rational soul (vov^, irvevfjLa), in opposition to the
Apollinarian heresy, which limited the extent of his humanity to a mere
body with an animal soul inhabited by the divine Logos. It also teach-
es the proper relation between the divine and human nature of Christ,
and excludes the Nestorian and Eutychian or Monophysite heresies, in
essential agreement with the Chalcedonian Symbol.1
III. The DAMNATORY CLAUSES. — The Athanasian Creed, in strong
contrast with \;he uncontroversial and peaceful tone of the Apostles'
Creed, begins and ends with the solemn declaration that the catholic
faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation herein set forth is the indis*
pensable condition of salvation, and that those who reject it will be lost
forever. The same damnatory clause is also wedged in at the close of
the first and at the beginning of the second part, This threefold anath-
ema, in its natural historical sense, is not merely a solemn warning
against the great danger of heresy,2 nor, on the other hand, does it de-
mand, as a condition of salvation, a full knowledge of, and assent to,
the logical statement of the doctrines set forth (for this would condemn
are so bound to mind it as to exorcise our faith, and express our humility, in willingly believ-
ing, in submissively adoring those high mysteries which are revealed in the holy oracles con-
cerning it by that Spirit itself which searcheth the depths of God. . . , That there is one Divine
Nature or Essence, common unto three Persons, incomprehensibly united, and ineffably dis-
tinguished— united in essential attributes, distinguished by peculiar idioms and relations ; all
equally infinite in every divine perfection, each different from the other in order and manner
of subsistence ; that there is a mutual inexistence of one in all, and all in one j a communica-
tion without any deprivation or diminution in the communicant ; an eternal generation, and
an eternal procession, without precedence or succession, without proper causality or depend-
ence ; a Father imparting his own, and the Son receiving his Father's life, and a Spirit issuing
from both, without any division or multiplication of essence — these are notions which may
well puzzle our reason in conceiving how they agree, but should not stagger our faith m assent-
ing that they are true ; upon which we should meditate, not with hope to comprehend, but
with dispositions to admire, veiling our faces in the presence, and prostrating our reason at
the feet, of Wisdom so far transcending us.'
1 See the preceding section.
8 So a majority of the 'Eitual Commission of the Church of England,' appointed in 1867:
1 The condemnations m this Confession of Faith are to be no otherwise understood than as a
solemn warning of the peril of those who willfully reject the Catholic faith.' Such a warning
would be innocent and unobjectionable, indeed, but fall far short of the spirit of an age which
abhorred heresy as the greatest of crimes, to be punished by death.
VOL. I.— D
40 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
the great mass even of Christian believers) ; but it does mean to exclude
from heaven all who reject the divine truth therein taught. It requires
every one who would be saved to believe in the only true and living
God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one in essence, three in persons, and
in one Jesus Christ, very God and very Man in one person.
The damnatory clauses, especially when sung or chanted in public
worship, grate harshly on modern Protestant ears, and it may well be
doubted whether they are consistent with true Christian charity and
humility, and whether they do not transcend the legitimate authority
of the Church. They have been defended by an appeal to Mark xvi.
16 ; but in this passage those only are condemned who reject the gospel,
, i. e., the great facts of Christ's salvation, not any peculiar dogma. Sal-
vation and damnation depend exclusively on the grace of God as appre-
hended by a living faith, or rejected in ungrateful unbelief. The orig-
inal Nicene Symbol, it is true, added a damnatory clause against the
Arians, but it was afterwards justly omitted. Creeds, like hymns, IOPO
their true force and miss their aim in proportion as they are polemical
and partake of the character of manifestoes of war rather than confes-
sions of faith and thanks to God for his mighty works.1
IV. INTRODUCTION and USB. — The Athanasian Creed acquired great
authority in the Latin Church, and during the Middle Ages it was al-
most daily used in the morning devotions.2
The Reformers inherited the veneration for this Symbol. It was for-
mally adopted by the Lutheran and several of the Reformed Churches*,
and is approvingly mentioned in the Augsburg Confession, the Form
of Concord, the Thirty-nine Articles, the Second Helvetic, the Belgic,
and the Bohemian Confessions.3
1 'It seems very hard,7 says Bishop Jeremy Taylor, 'to put xincharitablenesB into a creed,
and so to make it become an article of faith.' Chillingworth : 'The damning clauses in
St. Athanasius's Creed are most false, and also in a high degree schismaticul and presump-
tuous.'
* J. Bona, De divina Psalmodia, c. 16, § 18, p. 863 (as quoted by Kollner, Symbolik, 1. 85):
'Hind Symbolum olim, teste Honorio, quotidie est decantatum,jam vero diebus Domimds in
totius ccetttsjfreguentia redtatwi^ ut sanctcejfidei confe$$io ea die apertius celebretur.1
3 It is printed, with the two other oecumenical Creeds, in all the editions of the Lutheran
'Book of Concord/ and as an appendix to the doctrinal formulas of the Reformed Dutch
Church in America. It was received into the * Provisional Liturgy of the German Reformed
Church in the United States,' published Philadelphia, 1858, but omitted in the revised edition
of 1867.
§ 10. THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 41
Luther was disposed to regard it as f the most important and gl ,Jous
composition since the days of the apostles.'1
Some Reformed divines, especially of the Anglican Ohurcl^have
commended it very highly ; even the Puritan Richard Baxter lauded it
as 'the best explication [better, statement] of the Trinity,' provided,
however, £ that the damnatory sentences be excepted, or modestly ex-
pounded.'
hi the Church of England it is still sung or recited in the cathedrals
and parish churches on several festival days,2 but this compulsory pub-
lic use meets with growing opposition, and was almost unanimously
condemned in 1867 by the royal commission appointed to consider cer-
tain changes in the Anglican Ritual.3
The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, when, in con-
sequence of the American Revolution, it set up a separate organization
in the Convention of 1785 at Philadelphia, resolved to remodel the
Liturgy (in 6 the Proposed Book'), and, among other changes, excluded
from it both the Niceue and the Athanasian Creeds, and struck out
from the Apostles' Creed the clause, ' He descended into hell.' The
Archbishops of Canterbury and York, before consenting to ordain bish-
ops for America, requested their brethren to restore the clause of the
Apostles' Creed, and ' to give to the other two Creeds i place in their
Book of Common Prayer, even though the use of them should be left
discretional'4 In the Convention held at Wilmington, Del., October 10,
1 'JSs ist also ye/asset^ dass ic.h nic.ht wew, ob seit der Apostd Zeit in der Kirche des Neuen
Testamentes etwas Wwhtigeres und Herrlickeres geschrieben sei' (Luther, Werke, ed. Walch,
VI. 2815).
* The rubric directs that the Athanasian Creed ' shall be sung or said at Morning Prayer,
instead of the Apostles' Creed, on Christmas -day, tho Epiphany, St. Matthias, Easter -day,
Ascension-day, Whitsunday, St. John the Baptist, St, James, St. Bartholomew, St. Matthew,
St. Simon and St. Jude, St. Andrew, and upon Trinity Sunday.'
3 By nineteen out of the twenty-seven members of the Ritual Commission. See their opin-
ions in Stanley, 1. c. pp. 73 sqq. Dean Stanley on that occasion urged no less than sixteen
reasons against the public use of the Athanasian Creed. On the other hand, Dr. Pusey has
openly threatened to leave the Established Church if the Athanasian Creed, and with it the
doctrinal status of that Church, should be disturbed, Brewer's defense is rather feeble.
Bishop Kllicott proposed, in the Convocation of Canterbury, to relieve the difficulty by a re-
vision of the English translation, e. g. by rendering vult saints ease, ' desires to be in a state
of salvation,' instead of 'will be saved,1 Gibers suggest an omission of the damnatory clauses.
But the true remedy is either to omit the Athanasian Creed altogether from the Book of
Common Prayer, or to leave its public use optional.
4 Bishop White (of Philadelphia) : Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church in th*
United States of America, New York, 2d ed. 1836, pp 305, 306.
42 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
1786, the request of the English prelates, as to the first two points, was
acceded to, but 'the restoration of the Athanasian Creed was negatived.1
As the opposition to this Creed was quite determined, especially on ac-
count of the damnatory clauses, the mother Church acquiesced in the
omission, and granted the desired Episcopal ordination.1
In the Greek Church it never obtained general currency or formal
ecclesiastical sanction, and is only used for private devotion, with the
omission of the clause on the double procession of the Spirit.2
1 White's Memoir es, 26, 27. Bishop White himself was decidedly opposed to the Creed, m
was Bishop Provost, of New York. The Archbishop of ( 'antorbury told them afterwards* :
4 Some wish that you had retained the Athannsian (''reed ; but I can not Bay that I feel un-
easy on the subject, for you have retained the doctrine of it in your Liturgy, and aw to the
Creed itself, I suppose you thought it not suited to the use of a congregation' (1. c. 1 17, 1 18).
2 Additional Lit. on the Athan. Crood. — Swainson: The Nic. and App> Creeds, with an
Account of the Creed of St. Athanasivx, London, 1894. — Burn in Robinson's Texts and Stud-
ies, 1896. — Ommanney, London, 1897, is inclined to ascribe it to Vincons of LoriiiB about
450. — Bp. Gore, Oxf., 1897. — J. B. Smith in Contemp. Rev., Apr., 1901. — Oxonham,
London, 1902. — J. A. Robinson, London, 1905. — Bp. Jayne, 1905. — W. S. Bishop: Dead,
of Trin. Doctr. in the Nic. and Athanas. Creeds, 1910. — H. Brewor (S.J.), Das soffcnanntc.
Athanas. Glaubensbekenntniss, 1909. — Burkitt, 1912. — Loofs in Horzog, ii, 177-194, who
places its probable origin in Southern Franco, 450-600. — Badcock inclines to the Ambrosian
authorship and calls it a hymn to be memorised. Tho Abp. of Canterbury, following a
resolution of the Lambeth Conference, 1908, appointed a commission of seven, including
Bp. Wordsworth of Salisbury, Prof. Swote and Dean Kilpatrick, to prepare a revision of
the English translttion of the Athanas. Creed. Their report proposed thirteen minor
changes. The Anglican Book of Common Prayer prescribed that the Creed be said or
sung at morning prayer on thirteen feasts, including Christmas, Easter, Ascension day,
and Trinity Sunday. By the order of both Convocations it was omitted and a new
rubric inserted, making its use optional on Trinity Sunday. In the "Revised" Book
of Common Prayer, recommended by the House of Bishops and rejected by Parliament,
1928, the following rubrics are printed side by side, making the use of the creed optional:
"may be sung or said at morning or evening prayer" on the first Sunday after Christmas,
the feast of the Annunciation, and Trinity Sunday. 2. On Trinity Sunday, the reci-
tation beginning with clause 3, "The Catholic faith is this," etc., and closing with clause
28. 3. On the Sunday after Christmas and Ascension day, the recitation being from
clause 30 to clause 41. 4. On all the thirteen festivals mentioned in the original Book
of Common Prayer. A "revised translation is added" which differs from the trans-
lation of 1909. See the Translation of 1909 with Latin Text, by H. Turner, London, 1910,
15 pp. and 1918, 23 pp. Also the Book of Com. Prayer with the Additions and Deviation*
Proposed in 1988, with Pref., Cambr. Press, 1928. By Roman Cath. usage the creed is
prescribed for Trinity Sunday and at prime on all Sundays except Easter and such other
feasts for which a special service is provided. — ED.
§ 11. THE SEVKN (ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. 43
THIED CHAPTER
THE CREEDS OF THE GREEK CHURCH.
General Literature.
Orthodoxa Confessio cathoiicw atque apoatol. ccclesice orientalis aPKT. MOGILA compos., a MICLETIO SYBIGO
titu-ta et rnutata, (jr. c. prcaf. NKOTA.EII eurav. PANAGIOTTA, Amst. 1062 ; cum interpret, lat. ed. LAOR. NOB-
M VNN, Leipss. 1695, 8vo ; c. interpret, lat. et vern. german. ed. K. GLO. HOFMANN, Breslau, 1751, 8vo. Also in
RiiHHlun : Moscow, 1C96 ; German by J. LKONIL Fntwou, Frankfurt and Leipzig, 172T, 4to ; butch by J. A.
Senior, Haarlem, 17*22; in Kimmel'a Monumenta, P. 1. 1843.
Clypfun orthodoxce fidei, tfve Apologia ('AaTri? opSoSofi'ay, >/ airoXofia KO.I 3Xft?x<>0 ao 8'1/nodo Ifiero-
Mtlywitana, (A.D. 1672) sub Hierosolyrnorum Patriarvha DositJieo ooniiwstta advervw Calviniatait hcereticos,
<M-.. PabHHhod at Paris, Greek and Latin, 1676 and 1678 : then in HABDCINI Ac.fa Cowiliorum, Par 1715,
Tom. XI. fol. 179-274 : also in KIMMKL'B Monum. P. 1. 325-488. Comp. alwo the Acts of the Synod of Con-
tftaHtfnopfe, held in the same year (1672), and publ. in Hard. 1. c. 274-284, and in Kimmel, P. U 214-227,
Confmio cathol. et apotttolicain ortente eccleaice, comcripta compendiose per MBTKOPUANKM CIUTOI'UHTM.
Kd. et. lat, redd. J. HORNEJITB, Helmst. 1661, 4to (the title-page haw erroneously the date 1561).
CYBILM LuoAEis:Co/^««/o chH8t.jft.dei grceca cum additam. Cyrilli, Geneva, 1638: grsec. et lat. (Con-
demned as heretical.)
A eta et wripta theotogorum WirteinibwQenitium et patriarchs Constantino^. HIKBKMI^S, qua utrique ab a.
1576 wque ad a. 1581 de Augmtam Confessione inter m miwrunt, <jr. et lat. ab iisdem the-ologis edita,Wit-
tenb. 1584, Tol. This work contains the Augsburg Confession in Greek, three epistles of Patriarch Jere-
miah, criticiaing (he Aug*b. Conf., and the ana worn of the Tubingen divines, all in Greek and Latin.
,K. J. KIMMKL and II. WKIBHRNHOHN : Monwnwnta .fidei eccleaice oricntalis. Primum in unum corpus coir
tcnit, variantes tcoWo»w« mlnhtani^ prolffftmifiM adtiidtt, etc., 2 vols., Jense, 1S43-1S50. The first part con-
tains the two (JoiifRHH'oiiH of GonmulliiH, the ConfWHion of Cyrillus Lucuriu, the Coufeasio Orthodoxa,
and the Acts of the Synod of Jerusalem. The second part, vrhich is added by Wefeaeuboru, contains the
OonfdBBlo Metrophanls Crltopuli, and the Dccretum Synodi Constantinopolitance, 1672. Kimmel d. 1846.
W. GABB : Gennadius und Pletho, Aristotelitrmw ttnd PtatowbmMW in dcr griechiscJien Kirche, nebst einer
A bhandlung &ber die &fi$treituny dcs Mam im Mittclaltar, Brerinn, 1844, in two parts. The second part
contains, among other writings of Gennadins and Plotho, the two Confesaions of Geuuadius (l45S)in
Greek. By the same : Symboiik der grirahinclien Kirche, Berlin, 1872.
K. W. BLAUKMOBB: The Doctrine of the Russian Ghwoh, being the Primer or Spelling-book, the Shorter
and Longer Oatechtonw, and a 'JPreatiw on the Duty of Parish Priests. Translated from the Slavono-Ruatfan
Originate, Aberdeen, 1845.
§ 1 L TIIK SEVEN (ECUMENICAL OOUNOTLS.
The entire Orthodox Greek or Oriental Church,1 including the Greek
Church in Turkey, the national Church in the kingdom of Greece, and
the national Church of the Russian Empire, and embracing a member-
ship of about eighty millions, adopts, in common with the Roman com-
munion, the doctrinal decisions of the seven oldest oecumenical Coun-
cils, laying especial stress on the Nicene Council and Nicene Creed.
These Councils were all summoned by Greek emperors, and controlled
by Greek patriarchs and bishops. They are as follows :
1 The full name of the Greek Church is c the Holy Oriental Orthodox Catholic Apostolic
Church.1 The chief stress is laid on the title orthodox. The name r/oawcof, used by Polybius
and since as equivalent to the Latin Gr<zc.us, was by the Greeks themselves always regarded
as an exotic. Homer has three standing names for the Greeks : Dttmoi, Argeioi, and Achaioi;
also Panhellenes and Panachaioi. The ancient (heathen) Greeks called themselves Hellenes^
the modern (Slavonic) Greeks, till recently, Romans, in distinction from the surrounding
Turks. The Greek language, since the founding of the East Roman empire, was called Romaic.
44 THE CKKEbS OF CHRISTENDOM.
I. The first Council of Nicsaa, A.D. 325 ; called by Constantino M.
II. The first Council of Constantinople, A.D. 3S1 ; called by Thoo-
dosius M.
III. The Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431; called by Theodosum II.
IV. The Council of Ohalcedon, A..D. 451; called by Emperor Mar-
cian and Pope Leo I.
V. The second Council of Constantinople, A.D. 553; called by Jus
tinian I.
VI. The third Council of Constantinople, A.D. 680 ; called by Oon-
stantine Pogonatus.
VII. The second Council of Nieaea, A.D. 787 ; called by Irene and
her son Constantine.
The first four Councils are by f»r the most important, as they settled
the orthodox faith on the Trinity and the Incarnation. The fifth Coun
cil, which condemned the Three (Nestorian) Chapters, is a mere sup-
plement to the third and fourth. The sixth condemned Monothelitism.
The seventh sanctioned the use and worship of images,1
To these the Greek Church adds the Concilium Quiniaextwn,8 held
at Constantinople (in Trullo), A.D. 691 (or 692), and frequently ateo
that held in the same city A.D. 879 under Photius the Patriarch ; while
the Latins reject these two Synods as schismatic, and count the Synod
of 869 (the fourth of Constantinople), which deposed Photius and con-
demned the Iconoclasts, as the eighth oecumenical Council. But these
conflicting Councils refer only to discipline and the rivalry between the
Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope of Kome.
The Greek Church celebrates annually the memory of the seven holy
Synods, held during the palmy days of her history, on the first Sunday
in Lent, called the < Sunday of Orthodoxy,3 when the service is made to
1 Worship in a secondary sense, or dovXs/a, including ^trtraa^g xai /,
but not that adoration or a\ij&ivir) Xarjoei'a, which belongs only to God. See Hofele, Con-
ciliengesMchte, Bd. III. p. 440.
8 This Synod is called Quinisexta or Trev&iicnj, because it was to be a supplement to the
fifth and sixth oecumenical Councils, which had passed doctrinal decrees, but no canons of
discipline, It is also called the second Trullan Synod, because it was held 'in Trullo/ a
saloon of the imperial palace in Constantinople. The Greeks regard the canons of this Synod
as the canons of the fifth and sixth oecumenical Councils, but the Latins never acknowledged
the Quinisexta, and called it mockingly 4 erraticaS As the dates of the Quinisexta are vari-
ously given 686, 691, 692, 712. Comp. Baronius, Annal ad ann. 692, No. 7, and Hefele, 1 c.
III. pp. 298 sqq,
§ 11. THE SEVEN OECUMENICAL COUNCILS. 45
reproduce a dramatic picture of an oecumenical Council, with an em-
peror, the patriarchs, metropolitans, bishops, priests, and deacons in sol-
emn deliberation on the fundamental articles of faith. She looks for-
ward to an eighth oecumenical Council, which is to settle all the con-
troversies of Christendom subsequent to the great schism between the
East and the West.
Since the last of the seven Councils, the doctrinal system of the
Greek Church has undergone no essential change, and become almost
petrified. But the Reformation, especially the Jesuitical intrigues and
the crypto-Calvinistic movement of Cyril Lucar in the seventeenth cen-
tury, called forth a number of doctrinal manifestoes against Romanism,
and still more against Protestantism, We may divide them into three
classes :
I. Primary Confessions of public authority :
(a) The ' Orthodox Confession,' or Catechism of Peter Mogilas, 1643,
indorsed by the Eastern Patriarchs and the Synod of Jerusalem.
(i) The Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, or the Confession of Do-
sithcus,1672.
To the latter may be added the similar but less important decisions
of the Synods of Constantinople, 1672 (JResponsio Dionyxii), and 1691
(on the Eucharist).
(c) The Russian Catechisms which have the sanction of the Holy
Synod, especially the Longer Catechism of Philaret (Metropolitan of
Moscow), published by the synodical press, and generally used in Rus-
sia since 1839.
(d) The Answers of Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople, to certain
Lutheran divines, in condemnation of the doctrines of the Augsburg
Confession, 1576 (published at Wittenberg, 1584), were sanctioned by
the Synod of Jerusalem, but are devoid of clearness and point, and
therefore of little use.
II. Secondary Confessions of a mere private character, and hence not
to be used as authorities :
(a) The two Confessions of Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople,
1453. One of them, purporting to give a dialogue between the Patri-
arch and the Sultan, is spurious, and the other has nothing character-
istic of the Greek system.
(5) The Confession of Metrophanes Critopulus, subsecuiently Patri-
4.6 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
arch of Alexandria, composed during his sojourn in Germany, 1625.
It is more liberal than the primary standards.
III. Different from both classes is the Confession of Cyril Lucar, I t>SJ9,
which was repeatedly condemned as heretical (Calvinistic), but gave oc-
casion for the two most important expositions of Eastern orthodoxy.
We shall notice these documents in their historical order.
§ 12. THE CONFESSIONS OF GKNNADIUS, A..D. 1453.
J. C. T. OTTO : Des Patriarchen Qennadwa von Kwstantinopel Confession, Wion, 1864 (85 pp.).
See also the work of GABS, quoted p. 43, on Qennadiu* and Pletho (1844), ami an article of Prof. OTTO on
the Dialogue ascribed to Gennadiits, in (Nieduer's) ZeiUchrift fur htetoriscJw Theotogte for 1
The one or two Confessions which the Constantinopolitan Patriarch
GENNADIUS handed to the Turkish Sultan Mahmoud or Mahomet II,, in
1453, comprise only a very general statement of the ancient Christian
doctrines, without entering into the differences which divide the Oriental
Church from the Latin Communion ; yet they have a historical import-
ance, as reflecting the faith of the Greek Church at that time.
Georgius Scholarius, a lawyer and philosopher, subsequently called
Gennadius, was among the companions and advisers of the Greek Em-
peror John YIL, Palseologus, and the Patriarch Joasaph, when thoy, in
compliance with an invitation of Pope Eugenius IV., attended the Conn*
oil of Ferrara and Florence (A.D. 1438 and 339), to consider the reunion
of the Eastern and Western Catholic Churches. Scholarius, though
not a member of the Synod (being a layman at the time), strongly ad-
vocated the scheme, while his more renowned countryman, Georgius
Gemistus, commonly called Pletho (d. 1453), opposed it with as much
zeal and eloquence. Both were also antagonists in philosophy, Gen-
nadius being an Aristotelian, Pletho a Platonist. The union party tri-
umphed, especially through the influence of Cardinal Bcssarion (Arch-
bishop of Nicsea), who at last acceded to the Latin Filioque^ as con-
sistent with the Greek per Filium.1
But when the results of the Council were submitted to the Greek
Church for acceptance, the popular sentiment, backed by a long tradi-
tion, almost universally discarded them. Scholarius, who in the mean
time had become a monk, was compelled to give up his plans of reunion,
and he even wrote violently against it. Some attribute this inconsibt-
1 See, on the transactions of this Council, Mansi, Tom. XXXI., and Werner; QescMchte
der apoloQetischen und polemischen Literatur*Vol. III. DD. 57 so a.
§ 12. THE CONFESSIONS OF GENNADIUS. 47
ency to a change of conviction, some to policy ; while others, without
good reason, doubt the identity of the anti-Latin monk Scholar! us with
the Latinising Gennadins.1
Immediately after the conquest in 14r53,Scholarius was elected Patri-
arch of Constantinople, but held this position only a few years, as he is
said to have abdicated in 1457 or 1459, and retired to a convent. This
elevation is sufficient proof of his Greek orthodoxy, but may have been
aided by motives of policy, inspired by the vain hope of securing, through
his influence with the Latin church dignitaries, the assistance of the
Western nations against the Turkish invasion.
At the request of the Mohammedan conqueror, Getmadius prepared
a Confession of the Christian faith. The Sultan received it, invested
Gennadius with the patriarchate by the delivery of the crozier or pas-
toral staff, and authorized him to assure the Greek Christians of free-
dom in the exercise of their religion.2
This ' Confession' of Gennadius,3 or c Homily on the true faith of the
Christians,' was written in Greek, and translated into the Turko-Arabic
(the Turkish with Arabic letters) for the use of the Sultan.4 It treats, in
1 Karyophilus, Allatius, and Kimmei deny the identity of the two persons ; Robert Creyg-
thon, Kenaudot (1704), Richard Simon, KSpanheim, and Gass defend it. Spanheim, however,
regards the unionistie writings as interpolations. Allatius and Kimmel maintain that Genna-
dius continued friendly to the union as Patriarch, but Karyophilus supposes that the union-
istic Scholarius died before the conquest of Constantinople, and never was Patriarch. See Kim-
mel, Monumenta^ etc., Prolegomena, p. vi. ; Gass, 1. c. Vol. I. )>}>. r> sqq,, and Werner, 1. c. Vol.
III. pp. 07 sqq. Scholarius was a fertile writer of homilies, hymns, philosophical and theo-
logical essays. Four of these are edited in Greek by W. Gass, viz,, his Confession, the Dia-
logue Du Ha salutis, the book Contra Automatistas et HeJlenistas, and the book De providentia
et }>rw(lestin«tione (1. c. Vol. II. pp. 8 -1 46).
8 An account of the interview is given in the Historia patriarcharum qtii sederunt in hoc
magna catholicaqne ecclesia Constantinopolitanensi postquam cepit earn Sultanus Mechemeta,
written in modern Greek by Emmanuel Malaxas, a Peloponnesian, and sent by him to Prof.
M. Crusius, in Tubingen, who translated and published it in his Turco-Gr<ecia, 1 584. Crusius
and Chytraeus were prominent in a fruitless effort to convert the Greek Church to Lutheranism.
9 Kimmel calls it the second Confession, counting the Dialogue (which is of questionable
authenticity ; see below) as the first. But Gass more appropriately prints the Confession
first, and the Dialogue afterwards, under its own proper title, I)e Via Salutis.
* The title of the Vienna MS. as published by Otto is : ToiJ aidtat^rdrov irarpidpxov
Kwv<rravnvovir6\wc \ TENNAAIOT SXOAAPIOY | BijSXiov wept nvuv ice^aX
JlHtrtpag | 7n'<ma>£. The title as given by Gass from a MS. in Munich reads : Tov
icai irarptdpxov teal <f>t\oo6<j>ov \ JTJGNNAAIOY | ofJLiXia irtpt rye 6p3rtjc /cat d
7ricrr£a>c ruJy Xpcariavwv, In other titles it is called fyoXoyia or fyo\6yv)<ri£. This
Confession (together with the Dialogue on the Way of Life) was first published in Greek at
Vienna by Prof. John Alex. Brassicanus (Kohlburger), in 1530 ; then in Latin by J. Herold
(in his ffcerwotogia, Basil. 1556, from which it passed into the Patristic Libraries, Bibl. P.P.
4:8 THE CRKKDti OJT CHRISTENDOM.
twenty brief sections, of the fundamental doctrines on God, the Trinity,
the two natures in the person of Christ, his work, the immortality of the
soul, and the resurrection of the body. The doctrine of the Trinity in
thus stated : c We believe that there are in the one God three peculiari-
ties (iS<c6/jara rpta), which are the principles and fountains of all hm othor
peculiarities . . . and these three peculiarities we call the three Kulmist-
ences (u7roora««c)- • • - We believe that out of the nature (|« rjjc </>iW«>c)
of God spring the Word (\OJOQ) and the Spirit (irv&vfjLa), as from the fire
the light and the heat (cicrTrep d-rrb rou nvpoe fy&g xa\ S^ur/). . . . Those
three, the Mind, the Word, and the Spirit (i/oug, Xrfyo?, irv* &/*«), are one
God, as in the one soul of man there is the mind (voue), the rational
word (Aoyoc voijroe), ail<^ $le rational will (d£\i?<rcc vorjrY/) ; and yet theBo
three are as to essence but one soul (pta ^X^ Ka™ T')y ovtrlav)^1 The
difference of the Greek and Latin doctrine on the procession of the
Holy Spirit is not touched in this Confession. The relation of the
divine and human nature in Christ is illustrated by the relation of the
soul and the body in man, both being distinct, and yet inseparably
united in one person.
At the end (§ 14-20) are added, for the benefit of the Turks, seven
arguments for the truth of the Christian religion, viz. :2
1. The concurrence of Jewish prophecies and heathen oracles in the
pre-announeement of a Saviour.
2. The internal harmony and mutual agreement of the different parts
of the Scriptures.
Lugd<un.Tom. XXVI. 556, also B. P. P. CWon.Tom. XIV. 370, and B. P. P. /tor. Tom. IV.);
then in Greek and Latin by David Chytrous (in his Oratio de statu ecchttiaruw hor twnjittrti iti
Grcecia,Asia, Bosnia, etc., tfrankf. lf>88, pp. 178 sqqj; and soon afterwards in Grcok, Latin,
and Turkish by Mart. Crusius of Tubingen (in his 7Wco-6rwecta,BaHil. lf>84,Hh. II. 100 mjq.).
The text of Crusius differs from the preceding editions. Ho took it from a copy 8<wt to him,
together with the Sultan's answer, by Emmanuel Malnxas. Two other editicnm of tho ( Jroek
text were published by J. von Fuchten, Helmst. 1611, and by Ch. Daum, Oygncw (Xwicknu),
1677 (Hieronymi theologi Groeci dialogs de TKnitate, etc.). Kimmel followed the text of
Chytraeus, compared with that of Crusius and the different readings in the BibL Pair. Luydm.
See his Proleg. p. xx. The last and best editions of the Greek text of the Confession are by
Gass, 1. c. II. 3-15, who used three MSS., and compared older Greek editions and Latin ver-
sions; and by Otto (1864), who (like Brassicanus) reproduced the text of the Vienna Codex
after a careful re-examination, and added the principal variations of Brasnicanus and GUSH.
1 Compare, on the Trinitarian doctrine of Gennadius and its relation to Latin Scholasticism,
the exposition of Gass, I. 82 sqq. Kimmel and Otto (1. c. p. 400) make him a Platonist, but
there are also some Aristotelian elements in him.
8 This apologetic appendix is omitted in the editions of Brassicanus and Fuchten and is
rejected by Otto as a later addition (1. c. pp. 5-11).
§ 12. THE CONFESSIONS OF GENNADtUS. 49
3. The acceptance of the gospel by the greatest and best men among
all nations.
4. The spiritual character and tendency of the Christian faith, aiming
at divine and eternal ends,
5. The ennobling effect of Christ's religion on the morals of his
followers.
6. The harmony of revealed truth with sound reason, and the refuta-
tion of all objections which have been raised against it.
7. The victory of the Church over persecution and its indestructi-
bility.
The other Confession, ascribed to Gennadius, and generally published
with the first, is written in the form of a Dialogue (' Sermocitiatio')
between the Sultan and the Patriarch, and entitled 'TheWay ofLife.n
The Sultan is represented as asking a number of short questions, such
as : < What is God ?' < Why is he called God (Sreo'c) P ' How many Gods
are there P* < How, if there is but one God, can you speak of three Divine
Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost P 'Why is the Father called
Father?' < Why is the Son called Son?' ' Why is the Holy Spirit called
Spirit ?' To these the Patriarch replies at some length, dwelling mainly
on the doctrine of the Trinity, and illustrating it by the analogy of the
sun, light, and heat, and by the trinity of the human mind.
But there is no external evidence for the authorship of Gennadius;
1 £>e Via Salutis. The full title, as given by Gass, 1. c. II. 16, and Otto, 1. c. p. 409, reads :
Tov atdwipurarov irctTpiapxov KovoravrwovjroXew
TENNAAIOT SXOAAPIOT
fii$\iov tftfvrofiov rt Kai <ra$k£ ?r£pi nvwv Ks^aXcuwv rfa foBrspag TriVrewc, wcpl <5v ij &oX*£ifi
yiyovt /tmfc 'Ajuoipa rov Maxov^rov, 3 jcai imytypaKrcti
TTfpt TYJIG &<t)OV TTflQ ff <*) Tt) p i a £ (rwv) dl/S'/OWTTW^.
The tract was published three times in Greek in the seventeenth century-— by Brassicanus,
Vienna, 1580; by Joh. von Fuehten, Helmstadt, 1011 (or 1012); and by Damn, Zwickau,
1 677 ; but each of these editions is exceedingly rare. The Latin version was repeated in sev-
eral patristic collections, but with more or less omissions or additions (occasionally in favor
of the Romish system). We have now two correct editions of the Greek text, one by Gass
(1844), and another by Otto (1850 ; the latter was originally intended for an Appendix to
Kimmel's collection). Kimmel gives only the Latin version, having been unable to obtain
the Greek original (Proleg. p. xx.), and seems to confound the special title with the joint
title for both Confessions ; see BibL P. P. Colon. XIV. 878 ; Werner, L c. III. 08, note. The
Dialogue has also found its way into the writings of Athanasius ( Opera, Tom. II. 280, Patav.
1777, or II. 885, ed. Paris, 1098), but without a name or an allusion to the Sultan, simply
as a dialogue between a Christian bishop and a catechumen, and with considerable enlarge-
ments and adaptations to the standard of Greek orthodoxy. Comp. Gass, I. pp. 89 sqq., II.
pp. 16-30, and Otto, p. 407,
50 THE CREEDS Olf CHUlSTBiNBOM.
and the internal evidence is against it. There was no need of two
Confessions for the same occasion. There is nothing characteristic of
a Mohammedan in the questions of the Sultan. The text is moro loose
and prolix in style than the genuine Confession ; it contains Bonus absurd
etymologies unworthy of Gennadius ;l and it expressly teaches the Latin
doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Spirit.2 For these rea-
sons, we must either deny the authorship of tteunadius, or the integrity
of the received text.3 At all events, it can not be regarded in ita pres-
ent form even as a secondary standard of Greek orthodoxy.
§ 13. THE ANSWERS OF PATRIARCH JEREMIAH TO THE LUTHKRANS,
A.D. 1576.
Acta et Saripta theolog. Witrteniberg. et Patriarchs Constant HIKHKMTAB, quoted p. 48*
MARTIN OBUBIUH: 'furw-Grceoia, Basil. 1584.
MOTJRAVIKFF : H'intory of tJie Church of /frtwww'a, translated by Blnckmore, pp. 280-824,
HEFELE (uow Bishop of Rotten burg) : Ueber die alien und neu&ti Vernwhe, den Orient zu protetfanttot-
ren, in the Tubingvr Theol. Qmrtatechrtft, 1848, p. 544.
Art Jeremias //., in Herzog's Encyklop. 2d ed. Vol. VI. pp. 530-332. GABS : tf/mifcoltfe <t gr. JRT. pp. 41 sqq.
Melanchthon, who had the reunion of Christendom much at heart,
especially in the later part of his life, first opened a Protestant corre-
spondence with the Eastern Church by sending, through the huiidti of
a Greek deacon, a Greek translation (made by Paul Dolseius) of the
Augsburg Confession to Patriarch Joasaph II. of Constantinople, but
apparently without effect.
Several years afterwards, from 1573-75, two distinguished professors
of theology at Tubingen, Jacob Andreas, one of the authors of the Lu-
theran * F orm of Concord' (d. 1590), and Martin Crusius, a rare Greek
scholar (d. 1607),4 on occasion of the ordination of Stephen Gerlach for
1 The word 3-eot is derived from bswpfiv (airb rov Stuptfv ra Tcdvra olovtl Srwpdc), and tilno
from &tuv,percurrere (b y&p &tbg fai Kai iravraxov 7nfy>e<mi/) ; Trar///) i?5 derived from ryptw
(airb rov ra iravra rijjOetv), vl6s from olof, talis (qualis enim Pater, talis Filiwi), irvtf'na from
voew, intelliffo (iravra yap o&wg tTrtvoa).
8 In the Latin Version (Kimmel, p. 3) : * Quemadwodwn wfatantia soKs product radios, ft
a sole et radiis procedit lumen : ita Pater generat Filium MM Verbum ejus, et A PATRID MT
PROOBDIT SPIRITUS SANOTXTS.' In the Greek text (Gass, II. 19)t "QtrTrgp d di'moc o
evv$ rijv awrtva, Kai Trapd row r}\lov Krai r&v aierivwv k7rO)0€?/«rat rb 0wc * o^rw &
Kai Trarffp ytvvq, rbv ulbv Kai \6yov a^rov^Kai IK rov trarpbc Kai viov iKiroptvtrat rb
TO ayiov. A Greek Patriarch could not have maintained himself with such an open
avowal of the Latin doctrine. The text of Pseudo-Athanasius urges the provessio a wlo
Patre, and removes all other approaches to the Latin dogma.
9 See Gass, I. p. 100, and Symb. der griech. JKiVcAe, p. 38 ; Otto, p. 405. Both reject the
authenticity of the Dialogue.
* He was able to take Andreae's sermons down in Greek as they were delivered in German.
§ 13. ANSWERS OF PATRIARCH JERKMIAII TO THE LUTHERANS. 51
the Lutheran chaplaincy of the German legation at the Sublime Porte,
forwarded to the Patriarch of Constantinople commendatory letters,
and soon afterwards several copies of the Augsburg Confession in Greek
(printed at Basle, 1559), together with a translation of some sermons of
Andrew, and solicited an official expression of views on the Lutheran
doctrines, which they thought were in harmony with those of the East-
ern Church.
At that time Jeremiah II. was Patriarch of Constantinople (from
1572-94:), a prelate distinguished neither for talent or learning, but
for piety and misfortune, and for his connection with the Russian
Church at an important epoch of its history. lie was twice arbitrarily
deposed, saw the old patriarchal church turned into a mosque, and made
a collecting tour through Russia, where he was received with great
honor, and induced to confer upon the Metropolitan of Moscow the
patriarchal dignity over Russia (1589), and thus to lay the foundation
of the independence of the Russian Church.1
After considerable delay, Jeremiah replied to the Lutheran divines
at length, in 157(>, and subjected the Augsburg Confession to an unfa-
vorable criticism, rejecting nearly all its distinctive doctrines, and com-
mending only its indorsement of the early oecumenical Synods and its
view on the marriage of priests.2 The Tubingen professors sent him
an elaborate defense (1577), with other documents, but Jeremiah, two
years afterwards, only reaffirmed his former position, and when the
Lutherans troubled him with new letters, apologetic and polemic, he
declined all further correspondence, and ceased to answer.3
The documents of both parties were published at "Wittenberg, 1584.
The Answers of Jeremiah received the approval of the Synod of Je-
1 Moimivioif gives an interesting account of this visit of Jeromiah, who styled himself *by
the grace of God, Archbishop of Constantinople, which is new Home, and Patriarch of the
whole universe.' He made his solemn entry into the Kremlin seated on an ass, and presented
to the Cssar several rich relics, among which are mentioned * a gold Panagia [picture of the
Virgin Mary], with morsels of the life-giving Cross, of the Rohe of the Lord, and of that of
the Mother of God, incased within it, as well as portions of the instruments of our Lord's
Passion, the Spear, the Keed, the Sponge, and the Crown of Thorns.'
3 This third letter of Jeremiah is called Centura Oriental™ JErcfosifr, and covers nearly
ninety pages folio. His first two letters are hrief, and do not enter into doctrinal discussions.
3 Vitus Myller, in his funeral discourse on Orusius, complains of the Greeks as heing proud-
er and more superstitious than the Papists (pontiff mis lonye magis superstition). Crusius
edited also a Greek translation of four volumes of Lutheran sermons (Corona <mni, vrtyavoQ
TOV {ycai;rov,Wittenb. 160ft) for the benefit of the Greek neo\>le, but with no better success.
52 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
nualem in 1672,1 and may bo regarded, therefore, IIH truly
the spirit of the Eastern Communion towards Protestantism. It is evi-
dent from the transactions of the Synod of Jerusalem that the Greek
Church rejects Lutheranism and Calvinism alike as dangerous heresies.
The Anglican Church has since made several attempts to bring about
an intercommunion with the orthodox East, especially with the RUHBO-
Greek Church, during the reign of Peter the Great, and again in our
own days, but so far without practical effect beyond the exchange of
mutual courtesies and the expression of a desire for the reunion of or-
thodox Christendom.2
§ 14. THE CONFESSION OF METRO-THANKS CiuTortrLUS, A.D. 1625,
KIMMBL, Vol. II. pp. 1-218.
DIKTBLVAIXB: De Metrophane Oritopuk, etc., Altdorf, 1769.
FABRIOIUB : Mblioth. Grceca, ed. Harloss, Vol. XI. pp. 697-4599.
GABS : Art. M. K. iu Herzog's Encykkp. Vol. 3d ed. Vol. IX. pp. 726-729.
Next in chronological order comes the Confession of Metrophanes
Critopulus, once Patriarch of Alexandria, which \va& written in 1025,
though not published till 1661.
METROPHANES CRITOPULUS was a native of Beroea, in Macedonia, and
educated at Mount Athos. Cyril Lucar, then Patriarch of Alexandria,
sent him to England, Germany, and Switzerland (1616), with a recom-
mendation to the Archbishop of Canterbury (George Abbot), that he
might be thoroughly educated to counteract, in behalf of the Greek
Church, the intrigues of the Jesuits.3 The Archbishop kindly received
him, and, with the consent of King James I., secured him a place in
one of the colleges of Oxford. Tn 1620 Metrophanes visited tho Uni-
versities of Wittenberg, Tubingen, Altdorf , Strasburg, and llelmstadt
He acquired good testimonials for his learning and character. lie en-
tered into close relations with Calixtus and a few like-minded Lutheran
divines, who dissented from the exclusive confessionalism and scholastic
dogmatism of the seventeenth century, and labored for Catholic union
on the basis of the primitive creeds, At their request Metrophanes
prepared a work on the faith and worship of the orthodox Greek
Church. He also wrote a number of philological essays. After Bpend-
1 In Kimmel's Monumenta, Vol. I. p. 378.
a See beyond, § 20.
3 See the letter in Kimmel, Preface to Vol. II. p. vii., and in Colomeaii, Opera, quoted there.
On Cyril Lucar, see the next section.
§ 14, THE CONFESSION OF METROPHANES CRITOPULUS. 53
ing some time in Venice as teacher of the Greek language, he returned
to the East, and became successor of Cyril Lucar in Alexandria. But
he disappointed the hopes of his patron, and, as a member of the Synod
of Constantinople, 1638, he even took part in his condemnation. The
year of his death is unknown.
The Confession of Metrophanes1 discusses, in twenty-three chapters,
all the leading doctrines and usages of the Eastern Church. It is a
lengthy theological treatise rather than a Confession of faith. It has
never received ecclesiastical sanction, and is ignored by the Synod of
Jerusalem ; hence it ought not to be quoted as an authority, as is done
by Winer and other writers on Symbolics. Nevertheless, as a private
exposition of the Greek faith, it is of considerable interest.
Although orthodox in the main, it yet presents the more liberal and
progressive aspect of Eastern theology. It was intended to give a truth-
ful account of the Greek faith, but betrays the influence of the Protest-
ant atmosphere in which it was composed. It is strongly opposed to
Komanism,but abstains from all direct opposition to Protestantism, and
is even respectfully dedicated to the Lutheran theological faculty of
Ilelmstadt, where it was written.2 In this respect it is the counterpart
or complement of the Confession of Dositheus, which, in its zeal against
Protestantism, almost ignores the difference from Komanism.3 Thus
Metrophanes excludes 'the Apocrypha from the canon, denies in name
(though maintaining in substance) the doctrine of purgatory, and makes
a distinction between sacraments proper, viz., baptism, eucharist, and
penance, and a secondary category of sacramental or mystical rites, viz.,
confirmation (or chrisma), ordination, marriage, and unction.
1 '0/*o\oy('a 7% &vctro\tKrje faicXijcrtaG njff Ka&o\Lmig ical
rov Kpiroirov\ov.
Confemo catholic.® et apostoliccp. in Orienti ern!fa#if«>, conscripta compendiosti per METRO-
PHANBM CttlToruLUM, HuromondcJium et Patriarchalem Protovyngtllum. It was first pub-
lished in Greek, with a Latin translation, by .71 Hornejus, at Ilelmstadt. 1 061. Kimmel com-
pared with this ed. the MS. which is preserved in the library at Wolfenbuttel, but he died be-
fore his edition appeared, with a preface of Weissenborn (1850).
3 Nicolaus Comnenus called Metrophanes a Graco-Lutheranus, but without good reason.
3 See below, § 17.
54 THE CREEDS OF CUJUBTENDOM.
§ 15. THE CONFESSION OF CYKIL LUOAK, A.D. 1031.
Literature.
OTBILLX LXJOABIS Cawfessio CJurfattatue jklei, Ltxtiu, 1G20 ; c. add'itatti, Qyn'W, (jr. «t Lut., Gcmw. 1*UJ»;
(f Ainst.) 1645, and often ; also in KIMMKI/S Monuwieiita jftdet JScclew'cp Orient. I*. I. pp* SM-44. Compimi
Profcj7. pp. aod.-l. (dc w'ta Cyrillf).
TROM. SMITH : Collectanea de Cyrillo Lucari, London, 170T. Comp, alao, in Th. Smith's MlMfllanta
(Hal. 1724), his Narratio de vitat gtudiis, geMis et martyrio C. Lwaris.
LEO ALLA.TIUS (d. at Eome, 1669): De Ewlesim Owidentalw atqite Orientals ptrpctota eongfntritmc, ItbH
tree (III. 11), Gr. et Lut. Colon. 1648. Bitter and ulautlerouB against Cyril.
J. H. HOTTINGKR: Aiialecta MM. theol. IMtMrt. r///., Appendix, Tigur. lOfilJ (al. ICCd). Ayainnt him, L
ALLATIUS: J. If. JUottfiigerw*tfra<ttdti* et inipwttwtf maniffstff convictutt, Koin. 1661,
J. ATMON: Lettren antitidotw tie Cfirillc Ltwarw, Amstortl. 171S.
BOUNSTKDT: De Cyrillo jAMari, Halle, 17ii4.
MOUNIKK: Oil Cyril, in the titodicn und Kritikm, 1832, p. 560.
Several articles on Cyril Lucar, in the British Magazine for Sept. 1842, Dec. 1843, Jan. and June, 1N4-1.
TWBSTEN : On Cyril, in the Deutsche Zeitechr. f. christl. Wissensch. u. chr. Leben, Borl. 18BO, No. 89, p. MiB,
W. GABS: Article « LukairttJ in Herzog's Enoyklop. 2d ed. Vol. IX. pp. 5 sqq. ; and Ninubolik, pp. 50 «*qq.
ALOYSIUB PIOHLEK (Bom. Oath.): Der Patriarch Cyrtllw Lucaris und seine Zeit, Mtiachou, 1B62, 8vo.
(The author has since joined the Greek Church.)
The Confession of Cyril Lucar was never adopted by any "brunch or
party of the Eastern Church, and even repeatedly condemned as heret-
ical; but as it gave rise to the later authentic delimtions of the 4 Ortho-
dox Faith/ in opposition to the distinctive doctrines of Romanism and
Protestantism, it must be noticed here.
CYEILLUS LUOARIS (Kyrillos Loukaris1), a martyr of Protestantism
within the orthodox Greek Church, occupies a remarkable position in
the conflict of the three great Confessions to which the Reformation
gave rise. He is the counterpart of his more learned and successful,
but less noble, antagonist, Leo Allatius (1586-1669), who openly aposta-
tized from the Greek Church to the Roman, and became librarian of
the Vatican. His work is a mere episode, and passed away apparently
without permanent effect, but (like the attempted reformations of Wyclif,
Huss, and Savonarola) it may have a prophetic meaning for the future,
and be resumed by Providence in a better form.
Cyril Lucar was born in 1568 or 1572 in Candia (Crete), then under
the sovereignty of Venice, and the only remaining seat of Greek learn-
ing. He studied and traveled extensively in Europe, and waa for a
while rector and Greek teacher in the Russian Seminary at Ostrog, in
Volhynia. In French Switzerland he became acquainted with the Re-
formed Church, and embraced its faith. Subsequently he openly pro-
fessed it in a letter to the Professors of Geneva (1636), through Loger,
1 Properly ' the son of Lucar,' hence rov AovKdpwg. The word Xovicap in later Greek iy
/he Latin lucar, or lucrum, stipend, pay, profit, whence the French and English
§ lf>. TliE CONFESSION OF CYRIL LUCAR. 55
a minister from Geneva, who had been sent to Constantinople. He
conceived the bold plan of ingrafting Protestant doctrines on the old
oecumenical creeds of the Eastern Church, and thereby reforming the
same. lie was unanimously elected Patriarch of Alexandria in 1602 (?),
and of Constantinople in 1621. While occupying these high positions
he carried on an extensive correspondence with Protestant divines in
Switzerland, Holland, and England, sent promising youths to Protestant
universities, and imported a press from England (1629) to print his Con-
fession and several Catechisms. But he stood on dangerous ground,
between vacillating or ill-informed friends and determined foes. The
Jesuits, with the aid of the French embassador at the Sublime Porte,
spared no intrigues to counteract and checkmate his Protestant schemes,
and to bring about instead a union of the Greek hierarchy with Borne.
At their instigation his printing-press was destroyed by the Turkish
government. He himself — in this respect another Athanasius 'versus
mundum] though not to be compared in intellectual power to the c father
of orthodoxy5 — was live times deposed, and five times reinstated. At
last, however — unlike Athanasius, who died in peaceful possession of
his patriarchal dignity — he was strangled to death in 1638, having been
condemned by the Sultan for alleged high-treason, and his body was
thrown into the Bosphorus. His friends surrounded the palace of his
successor, Cyril of Beroea, crying, £ Pilate, give us the dead, that we
may bury him.'1 The corpse was washed ashore, but it was only ob-
tained by Cyril's adherents after having been once more cast out and
returned by the tide. The next Patriarch, Parthenius, granted him
finally an honorable burial.
Cjril left no followers able or willing to carry on his work, but the
agitation he had produced continued for several years, and called forth
* defensive measures. His doctrines were anathematized by Patriarch
Cyril of Beroea and a Synod of Constantinople (Sept.,1638),2 then again
by the Synods of Jassy, in Moldavia, 1643, and of Jerusalem, 1672 ; but
1 ITtXare, $0$ r//ilv rov vewpov, tva avrov S'ai
a Cyril of Borcea seemed to assume the authenticity of Cyril's Confession, He was, how-
ever, himself afterwards deposed and anathematized on the charge of extortion and embezzle-
ment of ecclesiastical funds, and for the part he took in procuring the death of Cyril Lncar
by preferring false accusation against him to the Turks. See MouraviefT, Hist, of the Church
of Russia, translated by Blackmore, p. iJ9K. Bladkmore, however, gives there a wrong date,
assigning the death of Cyril to 1628 instead of 1638,
VOTj. L— E
56 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
on the last two occasions the honor of his name and the patriarchal
dignity were saved by boldly denying the authenticity of his Confes-
sion, and contradicting it by written documents from his pen.1
This Cyril was the same who sent the famous uncial Codex Alexan-
drinus of the Jiible (A) to King Charles I. of England,3 and who trans-
lated the New Testament into the modern Greek language.3
The Confession of Cyril was first written by him in Latin, IflJiJ), and
then in Greek, with au addition of four questions and answers, UJ81, and
published in both languages at Geneva, 1633.* It expresses his own
individual faith, which he vainly hoped would become the faith of tho
Greek Church. It is divided into eighteen brief chapters, each forti-
fied with Scripture references; eight chapters contain the common
old Catholic doctrine, while the rest bear a distinctly Protestant char-
acter,
In Chapter I. the dogma of the Trinity is plainly stated in agree-
ment with the oecumenical creeds, the procession of the Spirit in tho
conciliatory terms of the Council of Florence.6 Chapters IV. and V.
treat of the doctrines of creation and divine government; Chapter VI.,
of the fall of man ; Chapters VII and VIII, of the twofold state of
Christ, his incarnation and humiliation, and his exaltation and Kitting
on the right hand of the Father, as the Mediator of mankind and tho
1 The Synods of Jassy and Jerusalem intimate that Cyril's Confession was a Calvinistic
forgery, and the Synod of Jerusalem quotes largely from his homilies to prove his orthodoxy.
Mouravieff, 1. c. p. 189, adopts a middle view, saying : 4 Cyril, although he hud condemned tho
new doctrine of Calvin, nevertheless had not stood up decidedly and openly to oppose it, and
for his neglect he was himself delivered over to an anathema hy MH successor, Cyril of Bercesn. '
*Not to James I. (who died 1625), as Kimmel and Gass wrongly state. Cyril brought
the Codex with him from Alexandria, or, according to another report, from Mount Athos,
and sent it to England in 1628, where it passed from the king's library into tho British Mu-
seum, 1753. It dates from the fifth century, and contains the Septuagint Version of the Old*
Testament, the whole New Testament, with some chasms, and, as an Appendix, tho only MH.
copy extant of the first Epistle of Clemens Roman us to the Corinthians, with a fragment of a
second Epistle. The New Test, has been edited in quasi-fac-sitmle, by Woide, Loud. 1 780,
foL, and in ordinary Greek type by Cowper, Lond. 1860.
3 Published at Geneva or Leyden, 1638, and at London, 1703.
* The Latin edition was first published in 1629, either at the Hague (by the Dutch cmbas-
sador Cornelius Van der Haga) or at Geneva, or at both places ; the author! tiew I have con-
sulted differ. The subscription to the Grseco-Latin edition before me reads: 'Latum Con-
stantinopoli mense Ja.nua.rvo 1631 Gyrillus Patriarcha Constantinopoleos.' Another edition
(perhaps by Hugo Grotius) was published 16*5, without indication of place (perhaps at Am-
sterdam). I have used Kimmel's edition, which gives the text of the edition of 1645.
a. Patre PER FiWUM procedens,' k row wctrpbg 8
§ 15. THE CONFESSION OF CYRIL LUCAR. 5?
Ruler of his Church (#tatit-ft exinanitionis and st. exaltationis)^ Chapter
IX., of faith in general ; Chapter XVI., of baptismal regeneration.
The remaining ten chapters breathe the lieformed spirit. 4 Chapter
II. asserts that c the authority of the Scriptures is superior to the au-
thority of the Church,' since the Scriptures alone, being divinely in-
spired, can not err.1 In the appendix to the second (the Greek) edition,
Cyril commends the general circulation of the Scriptures, and main-
tains their perspicuity in matters of faith, but excludes the Apocrypha,
and rejects the worship of images. He believes 'that the Church is
sanctified and taught by the Holy Spirit in the way of life,' but denies
its infallibility, saying : ' The Church is liable to sin (a^apravav), and
to choose the error instead of the truth (dvri rfje aXrjS'efae TO i/wSoe
lK\iy£v&at) ; from such error we can only be delivered by the teaching
and the light of the Holy Spirit, and not of any mortal man' (Oh. XII.).
The doctrine of justification (Chapter XIII.) is stated as follows:
4 We believe that man is justified by faith, not by works. But when we say "by faith,"
we understand the correlative of faith, viz., the Righteousness of Christ, which faith, fulfilling
the oiHce of the hand, apprehends and applies to us for salvation. And this we understand
TO be fully consistent with, and in no wise to the prejudice of, works ; for the truth itself
teaches us that works also are not to be neglected, and that they are necessary means and
testimonies of our faith, and a confirmation of our calling. But, as human frailty bears wit-
ness, they are of themselves by no means sufficient to save man, and able to appear at the
judgment-seat of Christ, so as to merit the reward of salvation. The righteousness of Christ,
applied to the penitent, alone justifies and saves the believer.7
The freedom of will before regeneration is denied (Oh. XIY.).2 In the
doctrine of decrees, Cyril agrees with the Calvinistic system (Ch. III.),
and thereby offended Grotius and the Arminians. lie accepts, with the
Protestants, only two sacraments as being instituted by Christ, instead
of seven, and requires faith as a condition of their application (Ch. XV.).
He rejects the dogma of transubstantiation and oral mandncation, and
teaches the Calvinistic theory of a real but spiritual presence and fru-
ition of the body and blood of Christ by believers only (Oh. XVII.).
In the last chapter he rejects the doctrine of purgatory and of the pos-
sibility of repentance after death.
1 'Credirnus Swipturaw sacram esse SeoMdctKrov (i. e., a Deo traditam} habereque auctorem
Spiritwn Sanctum, non alium, cm habere debemus fdem indMtam. . . . Propterea ejus auc-
toritatem esse. superiortm JScdmce auctoritate ; nimis enim differem e$t, loqui Spiritum Sanc-
tum et linguam hwnanam, quwn ista possit per ignorantiam errare, fall ere etfalli, Swiptura
vero divina necfalHtur, nee errare potest, aed est infallibilis semper et certa.'
9 ntoreiio/itv iv roij; QI'IK dvaywvrj&titri rh ai)Tt%ov<nov vfKpbv elvat. This is in direct oppo-
sition to the traditional doctrine of the Greek Church, which emphasizes the liberum arbitrium
even more than the Roman, and was never affected by the Augustinian anthropology.
58 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
§ 16. THE ORTHODOX CONFESSION OF MOGILAS, A.D. 1643.
The ORTHODOX CONFESSION OF THE CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC i KAKTKRN
CHURCH1 was originally drawn up about the year 1C40 by PKTKK .MO-
GILAS (or MOGILA), Metropolitan of Kieff, and father of llussian the-
ology (died 1647), in the form of a Catechism for the benefit of the
Russian Church.2 It was revised and adopted by a Provincial Synod
at Kieff for Russia, then again corrected and purged by a Synod of
the Greek and Russian clergy at Jassy, in 1643, where it received its
present shape by MELETIUS SYRIG-A, or STRIOA, the Metropolitan of Ki-
csea, and exarch of the Patriarch, of Constantinople. As thus improved,
it was sent to, and signed by, the four Eastern Patriarchs. The (Synod
of Jerusalem gave it a new sanction in 1672 (declaring it a o^uoXoyfa,
-fiv £§c£aro feat 8«xcrat a7n*?a7rXa>e Tracra 17 avaroAtfa) €KicA)?<na). Ill this
way it became the Creed of the entire Greek and Russian Church. It
has been the basis of several later Catechisms prepared by Kiwsian
divines.
6/zoXoyia rrjs KraS-oXt/cffc Kat «7ro0ToXijei}£ tejcXtyofac ri/c rbwroXuri}?, It is un-
certain whether it was first written in Greek or in Kuss. Jfirst published in Greek by Pumv*
giotta, Amst. 1062 ; then in Greek and Latin by Bishop Normami, of Gothenburg (then Pro-
fessor at Upsala), Leipx. 1695; in Greek, Latin, and German by 0. G. Ilofmnnn, Bnwlau,
17,51; by Patriarch Adrian in Russian, Moscow, 1096, and again in I8<*W, etc. ; in Kimmel'H
Monwn. I. 56-824 (Greek and Latin, with the letters of Nectarius and Parthenius). Clomp.
Kimmel's Proleg. pp. Ixii. sqq. The Confession must not be confounded with the Short Rus-
sian Catechism by the same author (Peter Mogilas).
8 The following account of Mogilas is translated from the Russian of Bolchofsky by Black-
more (Tfie Doctrine of the Russian Church, p. xviii.): * Peter Mogila belonged by birth to the
family of the Princes of Moldavia, and before he became an ecclesiastic had diHtinguishod
himself as a soldier. After having embraced the monastic life, he became first Archimandrite
of the Pechersky, and subsequently, in 1 (>32, Metropolitan of Kieff, to which dignity he wius
ordained by authority of Cyril Lucar [then Patriarch of Constantinople], with the title of
Eparch, or Exarch of the Patriarchal See. Ho sat about fifteen years, and died in 1(547,
Besides the Orthodox Confession, he put out, in 1645, in the dialect of Little Russia, his *SV/orf
Catechism,- composed a Preface prefixed to the Patcriron; corrected, in 1640, from Greek
and Slavonic MSS-, the Trelml\ or Office-book, and added to each Office doctrinal, CURU-
istical, and ceremonial instructions, lie also caused translations to be made from the Greek
Lives of the Saints, by Metaphrastus, though this work remained unfinished at bin death ;
and, lastly, he composed a Short Russian Chronicle, which is preserved in MS., but hus never
yet been printed. He was the founder of the first Russian Academy at Kieff.* It, wan culled,
after him, the Kievo-Mogilian Academy, lie also founded a library and a printing-promt.
See a fuller account of Peter Mogilas in Mouravieff's History of the Church of Russia, trans-
lated by Blackmore (Oxford, 1842), pp. 186-189. It is there stated that he received his edu-
cation in the University of Paris. This accounts for the tinge of Latin scholasticism in his
Confession.
§ 16. THE OKTHODOX CONFESSION OF MOGILAS. 59
The Orthodox Confession was a defensive measure against Romanism
and Protestantism. It is directed, first, against the Jesuits who, under
the protection of the French embassadors in Constantinople, labored to
reconcile the Greek Church with the Pope ; and, secondly, against the
Calvinistic movement, headed by Cyril Lucar, and continued after his
death.1
It is preceded by a historical account of its composition and publica-
tion, a pastoral letter of Nectarius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, dated Nov.
20, 1602; and by a letter of indorsement of the Greek text from Par-
thenius, Patriarch of Constantinople, dated March 11, 164S,2 followed
by the signatures of twenty-six Patriarchs and prelates of the Eastern
Church.
The letter of Parthenius is as follows :
* Parthenius, by the mercy of God, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and (Ecu-
menical Patriarch. Our mediocrity,3 together with our sacred congregation of chief bishops
and clergy present, has diligently perused a small book, transmitted to us from our true sister,
the Church of Lesser Russia, entitled "The Confession of the Orthodox Faith of the Catholic
and Apontolic, Church of Christ," in which the whole subject is treated under the three heads
of Faith, Love, and Hope, in such a manner that Faith is divided into twelve articles, to wit,
those of the sacred [Nicene] Symbol ; Love into the Ten Commandments, and such other nec-
essary precepts as are contained in the sacred and divinely inspired books of the Old and New
Testaments ; ffope into the Lord's Prayer and the nine Beatitudes of the holy Gospel.
* We have found that this book follows faithfully the dogmas of the Church of Christ, and
agrees with the sacred canons, and in no respect differs from them. As to the other part of
the book, that which is in the Latin tongue, on the side opposite to the Greek text, we have
not perused it, so that we only formally confirm that which is in our vernacular tongue. With
our common synodical sentence, we decree, and we announce to every pious and orthodox
Christian subject to the Eastern and Apostolic Church, that this book is to be diligently
read, and not to be rejected. Which, for the perpetual faith and certainty of the fact, we
guard by our subscriptions. In the year of salvation 1 648, 1 Hh day of March.'
The Confession itself begins with three preliminary questions and
answers. Question first : ' What must an orthodox and Catholic Chris-
tian man observe in order to inherit eternal life ?' Answer : ' Right
1 See § 15. Mouravieff, in his Hist, of the Church of Russia, p. 188, distinctly asserts that
the Confession was directed both against the Jesuits and against * the Calvinistic heresy/
which, * under the name of Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, 'had been disseminated
in the East by * crafty teachers. ' As Cyril and the Calvinists are not mentioned by name in
the Orthodox Confession, another Russian writer, quoted by Blackmore (The Doctrine of the
Russian Church, p. xx.), thinks that MogiUs wrote against the Lutherans rather than the Cal-
vinists ; adding, however, that it is chiefly directed against the Papists, from whom danger
was most apprehended.
a This is the date (<*XMy') given by Kimmel, P. I. p. 5B, and the date of the Synod of Jassy,
where the Confession was adopted. Butler (Hi$t.Ar.c. ofConf. of Faith, p. 101) gives the
year 1GG3; but the Confession was already published in 1662. with the letters of the two
Patriarchs. See Kimmel, Proleg. p. Ixii.
3 r) nsrpiorw r/ n&v, a title of proud humility, like the papal ^ servus tervorum Dei,7 which
dates from Gregory I.
60 THE CREEDS Otf CHRISTENDOM.
faith and good works (irtmv op&rjv KCU tpya KoXa) ; for he who observes
these is a good Christian, and has the hope of eternal salvation, accord-
ing to the sacred Scriptures (James ii. 24) : " Ye see, then, how that by
works a man is justified, and not by faith only ;" and a little after (v.
26) : "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works
is dead also.15 The divine Paul adds the same in another place (1 Tim.
i. 19): "Holding faith and a good conscience; which some having put
away, concerning faith have made shipwreck ;" and, in another place,
he says (1 Tim. iii. 9): i: Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure
conscience." ' This is essentially the same with the Iloman Catholic
doctrine. It is characteristic that no passage is cited from the Romans
and Galatians, which are the bulwark of the evangelical Protestant
view of justification by faith. The second Question teaches that faith
must precede works, because it is impossible to please God without faith
(Heb. xi. 6). The third Question treats of the division of the Catechism
according to the three theological virtues, faith, hope, and charity.
The Catechism is therefore divided into three parts.
1. Part first treats of Faith (nt-pl Trforawe), and explains the Kiceno
Creed, which is divided into twelve articles, and declared to contain all
things pertaining to our faith so accurately 'that we should believe
nothing more and nothing less, nor in any other sense than that in
which the fathers [of the Councils of Nicsea and Constantinople] un-
derstood it' (Qu. 5). The clause Filiogue is, of course, rejected as an
unwarranted Latin interpolation and corruption (Qu. 72).
2. Part second treats of Hope (irspl eX-m'Soe), and contains an exposi-
tion of the Lord's Prayer and the (nine) Beatitudes (Matt. v. 3-11).
3. Part third treats of Love to God and man (irtpl TJJC ete &&v ml
rbv TrXijo-tov ayaTnje), and gives an exposition of the Decalogno ; but
this is preceded by forty-five questions on the three cardinal virtues of
prayer, fasting, and almsgiving, and the four general virtues which flow
out of them (prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance), on mortal
and venial sins, on the seven general mortal sins (pride, avarice, forni-
cation, envy, gluttony, desire of revenge, and sloth), on the sins against
the Holy Ghost (presumption or temerity, despair, persistent opposition
to the truth, and renouncing of the Christian faith), and on venial sins.
In the division of the Ten Commandments the Greek Confession agrees
with the Eeformed Church in opposition to the Eoman and Lutheran
§ n. SYNOD OF JERUSALEM: AND CONFESSION OF DOSITHEUS. 61
Churches, which follow the less natural division of Augustine by merg-
ing the second commandment in the first, and then dividing the tenth.
§ 17. THE SYNOD OF JERUSALEM AND THE CONFESSION OF DOSITHEUS,
A.D. 1672.
HARDOUIN : Acta Conciliorum (Paris, 1715), Tom. XI. pp. 179-274.
KIMMKL : Monumenta Mdei JKcelesice Orientalis, P. I. pp. 3*25-488; Prolegomena, pp. Ixxv.-xcii.
On the Synod of Jerusalem, comp. also ITTIG: Dissert, de Actis Synodi Uteros. a, 1672 sub Patr. Hiers.
DoHitliM adv. Caloinistas Iiabitcp, Lips. 1696. AYMON : Mowumunta authentiques de la religion des Orecst
i\ la Ilayo, 1708. BASNAOB: Hist, de la religion (tea tgllm i tformeen, P. I. ch. xxxii. J. OOYXL: Account
of the, prtwnit Greek Church, Bk. I. ch. v. SOUEOBOKH : KircJiengeschichte seit der Itfforwation, Bd. ts. (by
ii), pp. 90-96. GABS : Symb. der griech. KircJw, pp. 79-84.
The Synod convened at Jerusalem in March, 1672, by Patriarch Do-
sitheus, for the consecration of the restored Church of the Holy Nativity
iu .Bethlehem,1 issued a new DEFENSE or APOLOGY of Greek OETHODOXT.
It is directed against Calvinism, which was still professed or secretly
held by many admirers of Cyril Lucar. It is dated Jerusalem, March
16, 1672, and signed by Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem and Pales-
tine (otherwise little known), and by sixty-eight Eastern bishops and ec-
clesiastics, including some from Russia.2
This Synod is the most important in the modern history of the East-
ern Church, and may be compared to the Council of Trent. Both fixed
the doctrinal status of the Churches they represent, and both condemned
the evangelical doctrines of Protestantism. Both were equally hier-
archical and intolerant, and present a strange contrast to the first Synod
held in Jerusalem, when c the apostles and elders,' in the presence of
* the brethren,3 freely discussed and adjusted, in a spirit of love, without
anathemas, the gveat controversy between the Gentile and the Jewish
Christians. The Synod of Jerusalem has been charged by Aymon and
others with subserviency to the interests of Kome ; Dositheus being in
correspondence with Nointel, the French embassador at Constantinople.
The Synod was held at a time when the Romanists and Calvinists in
France fiercely disputed about the Eucharist, and were anxious to se-
cure the support of the Greek Church. But although the Synod was
chiefly aimed against Protestantism, and has no direct polemical ref-
1 Hence it is sometimes called the Synod of Bethlehem, but it was actually held at Jerusalem.
8 Its title is A<T7T(£ 6p&o8o%iac ») dTroXoyfa icai Acyx0? irpbc ro^c diaevpovrag rrfv avaroXi-
K$V &KK\r)ffiav alpeTtK&c fypovtiv Iv role irepi S'eow /cat TMV dccbw, ic.r.X. Oli/peus orthodoxos
fidei sive Apologia adversus Calmmstas hcweticos, Orientahm ecdesiam de Deo rebusque
divinis hmretice cum ipsis sentire mentientes. The first edition, Greek and Latin, was pub-
lished at. Paris, 1676 ; then revised, 1678 ; also by Hardouin, and Kimmel, 1. c.
£2 TtIB CfcEKlXS OF CHRISTENDOM.
erence to the Latin Church, it did not give up any of the distinctive
Greek doctrines, or make any concessions to the claims of the Papacy.
The acts of the Synod of Jerusalem consist of six chapters, and a
confession of Dositheus in eighteen decrees. Both are preceded by a
pastoral letter giving an account of the occasion of this public confes-
sion in opposition to Calvinism and Lutheranism, which arc condemned
alike as being essentially the same heresy, notwithstanding some appa-
rent differences.1 The Answers of Patriarch Jeremiah given to Martin
Crusius, Prof essor in Tubingen, and other Lutherans, in 1572, are ap-
proved by the Synod of Jerusalem, as they were by the Synod of Jtuwy,
and thus clothed with a semi-symbolical authority. The Orthodox Con-
fession of Peter Mogilas is likewise sanctioned again, but the Confession
of Cyril Lucar is disowned as a forgery.
The Sift Chapters are very prolix, and altogether polemical against
the Confession which was circulated under the name of Cyril Lucar,
and give large extracts from his homilies preached before the clergy
and people of Constantinople to prove life orthodoxy. One anathema
is not considered sufficient, and a threefold anathema is hurled against
the heretical doctrines.
The Confessio Dosithei presents, in eighteen decrees or articles,2 a
positive statement of the orthodox faith. It follows the order of Cyril's
Confession, which it is intended to refute. It is the most authoritative
and complete doctrinal deliverance of the modern Greek Church on
the controverted articles. It was formally transmitted by the Eastern
Patriarchs to the Russian Church in 1721, and through it to certain
Bishops of the Church of England; as an ultimatum to be received with-
out further question or conference by all who would be in communion
with the Orthodox Church. The eighteen decrees were also published
in a Russian version (1838), but with a number of omissions and quali-
fications,3 showing that, after all, the Russian branch of the Greek
Qpovsi AovS'TjjOoc KflrXovfr^, «' Kal h run SiaQspetv $OKOV<H.V. Won alia est Lu-
theri hasresis atque Calvini, quamquam nonnihil indetur interest (Kimrael, P. I. p, 885),
9 ''Ojoof , decree, decision. It is translated capituhm in Hardouin, decretum in Kiramel.
3 Under the title 'Imperial and Patriarchal Letters on the Institution of the Most Ifofy
Synod, with an Exposition of the Orthodox Faith of the Catholic. Church of the EasC See
Blackmore, 1. c. p. xxviii. Blackmore /"pp. xxvi. and xxvii.) gives also two interesting letters
of * the Most Holy Governing Synod of the Russian Church to the Most Reverend the Bishops
of the Remnant of the Catholic Church in Great Britain, our Brethren most beloved in the
§ 17. SYNOD OF JERUSALEM AND CO&FESSION OF DOSITHEUS. 63
Church reserves to itself a certain freedom of further theological de-
velopment. We give them here in a condensed summary from the
original Greek :
Article L — The doctrine of the Holy Trinity, with the single pro-
cession of the Spirit. (Hvsvfia ayiov £/c rov rrarpo^ iKirop&vofjL^vov.
Against the Latins.)
Article 77. — The Holy Scriptures must be interpreted, not by private
judgment, but in accordance with the tradition of the Catholic Church,
which can not err, or deceive, or be deceived, and is of equal authority
with the Scriptures. (Essentially Romish, but without an infallible,
visible head of the Church.)
Article II L — God has from eternity predestinated to glory those who
would, in his foreknowledge, make good use of their free will in accept-
ing the salvation, and has condemned those who would reject it. The
Oalvinifitic doctrine of unconditional predestination is condemned as
abominable, impious, and blasphemous.
Article IV. — The doctrine of creation. The triune God made all
things, visible and invisible, except sin, which is contrary to his will, and
originated in the Devil and in man.
Article V. — The doctrine of Providence. God foresees and permits
(but does not foreordain) evil, and overrules it for good.
Article VL — The primitive state and fall of man. Christ and the
Virgin Mary are exempt from sin.
Article VIL — The doctrine of the incarnation of the Son of God,
his death, resurrection, ascension, and return to judgment.
Article VIIL — The work of Christ. He is the only Mediator and
Advocate for our sins ; but the saints, and especially the immaculate
Mother of our Lord, as also the holy angels, bring our prayers and peti-
tions before him, and give them greater effect.
Article 7JT. — No one can be saved without faith, which is a certain
persuasion, and works by love (i. e. the observance of the divine com-
mandments). It justifies before Christ, and without it no one can
please God.
Article X. — The holy Catholic and Apostolic Church comprehends
Lord,' in answer to letters of two Non-Jurors and two Scotch Bishops seeking communion
with the Eastern Church. Comp. § 20.
64 THE CRKEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
all true believers in Christ, and is governed by Christ, the only head,
through duly ordained bishops in unbroken succession. The doctrine
of Calvinists, that bishops are not necessary, or that priests (presbyters)
may be ordained by priests, and not 1 y b'shops only, is rejected.
Article XI. — Members of the Catholic Church are all the faithful,
who firmly hold the faith of Christ as delivered by him, the apostles,
and the holy synods, although some of them may be subject to various
sins.
Article XII. — The Catholic Church is taught by the Holy Ghost,
through prophets, apostles, holy fathers, and synods, and therefore can
not err, or be deceived, or choose a lie for the truth. (Against Cyril;
comp. Art II.)
Article XIIL — Man is justified, not by faith alone, but also by works.
Article XIV. — Man has been debilitated by the fall, and lost the
perfection and freedom from suffering, but not his intellectual and
moral nature. He has still the free will (ro ain£ovcnov) or the power
to choose and do good or to flee and hate evil (Matt. v. 46, 47 ; Horn, i.
19 ; ii. 14, 15). But good works done without faith can not contribute
to our salvation ; only the works of the regenerate, done under grace
and with grace, are perfect, and render the one who does them worthy
of salvation (crwTriptag a%iov iroulrat rbv Ivspyovvra).
Article XV. — Teaches, with the Roman Church, the seven sacra-
ments or mysteries (/warworn), viz., baptism (ro ayiov /3a7mcr/*a, Matt
xxviii. 19), confirmation (/3<-/3aiW<c or XP^W kxike xxiv. 49 ; 2 Cor. i*
21 ; and Dionysius Areop.), ordination (hpocrvvn, Matt, xviii. 18), the un-
bloody sacrifice of the altar (17 dvafjuaicroe SWa, Matt xxvi. 26, etc*.),
matrimony (y<fytoc, Matt xix. 6; Eph. v. 32), penance and confession
(fieravoia KOI l^o/uoAoyixnc? John xx. 23 ; Luke xiii. 3, 5), and holy unc-
tion (ro ayiov tXaiov or cvx&atoi', Mark vi. 13 ; James v. 14). Sacra-
ments are not empty signs of divine promises (as circumcision), but
they necessarily (ig avayfcijc) confer grace (as opyava SpacmKa xq&'roc).
Article XVI. — Teaches the necessity of baptism for salvation, bap-
tismal regeneration (John iii. 5), infant baptism, and the salvation of
baptized infants (Matt xix.12). The effect of baptism is the remission
of hereditary and previous actual sin, and the gift of the Holy Spirit
It can not be repeated; sins committed after baptism must be forgiven
by priestly absolution on repentance and confession.
§ 17. SYNOD OF JERUSALEM AND CONFESSION OF DOSITHEUS. 65
Article XV I L — The Eucharist is both a sacrament and a sacrifice,
in which the very body and blood of Christ are truly and really (aAjj&we
KCU TrpayfjLaTLKve) present under the figure and type (iv cYSe* KOL rvirq) of
bread and wine, are offered to God by the hands of the priest as a real
though unbloody sacrifice for all the faithful, whether living or dead
(vTrlp Travnvv TUV cucrfjSwv Z&VTOJV Koi reS'vteirow), and are received by
the hand and the mouth of unworthy as well as worthy communicants,
though with opposite effects. The Lutheran doctrine is rejected, and
the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation (/^rajSoA/j, ^rovmwmo) is
taught as strongly as words can make it;1 but it is disclaimed to give
an explanation of the mode in which this mysterious and miraculous
change of the elements takes place.2
Article X VII L — The souls of the departed are either at rest or in
torment,3 according to their conduct in life ; but their condition will not
be perfect till the resurrection of the body. The souls of those who
die in a state of penitence (jturavoJio'avrcc), without having brought forth
fruits of repentance, or satisfactions (JKavoTrofycue)? depart into Hades
(a7rfy>xC(T^a£ «e $Sov), and there they must suffer the punishment for their
sins; but they may be delivered by the prayers of the priests and the
alms of their kindred, especially by the unbloody sacrifice of the mass
1 Deer. 17 (Kimmel, P. I, p. 457): <Iicrre jttcrd rbv ayiannbv rov dprov ical rov o'ivov /*€ra-
j3a\\€(T&at (to be translated), /wtroi;<rioO<r3pai (transubstantiated), fjLeraTroitla&ai (re-
fashioned, transformed), ptraftpv&plZEa&eu (changed, reformed), rbv ptv &prov «V abrb rb
&\ij&l£ rov Kiipiov crityta, OTTSp lyevvffir) Iv Bty&Xefyt IK rtjg cttiTrap&ivov, eflairriv&q iv 'lopddvy,
factSrtVj ircKpT), dvforri, dveXirfSq, KaSyrai IK dt£ia>v rov Qeov Kai iraripos, ptXXet, iX^rtlv fat rwv
ve<f>6\wv rov ovpavov — rbv & olvov fuerairoislaSrctt Kai p£rovatov(r&ai elf abrb rb AXrjSrkg
rov Kvpiov al/za, fiirtp Kpefj.ap.kvov lirl rov crravpov Ix1'^ vvkp rf/c rot; /coer/iou ?u^)Jc. Mosheim
thinks that the Greeks first adopted in this period the doctrine of tran substantiation, but Kies-
ling (Hint, aoncartat. Grwcorum Latinorumqw de transsubstantiatione, pp, $54-480, as quoted
by Tzschiraer, in Vol. IX. of his continuation of Schroeckh's Churvh Hist, sinre the Reforma-
tion, p. 102) has shown that several Greeks taught this theory long before or ever since the
Council of Florence (1489). Yet the opposition to the Calvinistic view of Cyril and his sym-
pathizers brought the Greek Church to a clearer and fuller expression on this point.
8 Ibid. (p. 4C1): In ry fjt6rovcrt<*)<nc \k%ei oh rbv rpvirov marivoniv fyXovff&cu, icaS"' 8?
b &pro£ fc<at b oil/off psrctTrotovvrai fig rb acfym /cai rb alpa rov Kvpiov — rovro yap aXqirrov
Travnj teal dtdvvarov TT\^V avrov rov 9-eov. In the "Lat. Version: 'Prwterfia verbo TRAKSSUB-
BTANTIATIONIS modum illwn, quo in corpus et sangitinem Domini panis et vinum convertantur,
explicari mininie credimus — id enim penitus inftomprefiensibileS etc. Mcrovo'ioxric (not given
in the Classical Diet., nor in Sophocles's Byzantine Greek Diet., nor in Snicer's Thesaurus)—*
from the classical ovai6(*>, to call into being (otxria) or existence, and the patristic oMuvis, a
calling into existence— must be equivalent to the Latin transsulstantiatio, or change of th*
elemental substance of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.
9 iv avfiw, lit, in relaxation, recreation, rj kv 6$vvy, or in pain, distress*
66 THE CREEPS OF CHRISTENDOM.
(/ueryaXa Suva/zlvijc //aAiora rf/£ avaijmaKrov Sw/'ac), which individualB
offer for their departed relatives, and which the Catholic and Apostolic
Church daily offers for all alike. The liberation from this intervening
state of purification will take place before the resurrection and the gen-
eral judgment, but the time is unknown.
This is essentially the Romish doctrine of purgatory, although the
term is avoided, and nothing is said of material or physical torments.1
To these eighteen decrees are added four questions and answers,
with polemic reference to the similar questions at the close of the en-
larged edition of Cyril's Confession.2 The first question discourages
and even prohibits the general and indiscriminate reading of the Holy
Scriptures, especially certain portions of the Old Testament The
second denies the perspicuity of the Scriptures. The third defines the
extent of the canon including the Apocrypha.3 The fourth teaches the
worship of saints, especially the Mother of God (who is the object of
1 The same doctrine is taught in the Longer Russian Catechism of Philarot (on the 1 1 rh
article of the Nicene Creed). It is often asserted (even by Winer, who is generally very
accurate, Symb. pp. 158, 150) that the Greek Church rejects the Romish purgatory. Winer
quotes the Conf. Metrophanis Critopuli, c. 20; hut this has no ecclesiastical authority, and,
although it rejects the word mjp KaSaprfjpiov (ignis pur(jatoriua\ and all idea of material or
physical pain (rt)v imivwv irowr)v pr) vXucfiv itvat, t'lrovi; 6pyavucf}v, fjLf) &ct irvptifr /o/n &
asserts, nevertheless, a spiritual pain of conscience in the middle state (a\\a
Kal aviag njjc ffvvttd '/jwwff)* from which the sufferei's may be released by prayers
and the sacrifice of the altar. The Conf. Orthodoxa (P. T. Q"\ 66) speaks vnguely of a wprf-
ffKaipos KoXaaie Ka&apTiKt} rwv \fwx&v, 'a temporary purifying (disciplinary) punishment of the
souls.' The Roman Church, on her part, does not require belief in a material fire, The (3 reck
Church has no such minute geography of the spirit world as the Latin, which, besides heaven
and hell proper, teaches an intervening region of purgatory for imperfect Christians, and t\vo
border regions, the Limbus Patrum for the saints of the Old Testament now delivered, and
thsLimbus Infantum for unbaptteed children ; but it differs much more widely from the Proi
estant eschatology, which rejects the idea of a third or middle place altogether, and assign
all the departed either to a state of bliss or a state of misery ; allowing, however, different
degrees in both states corresponding to the different degrees of holiness -and wickedness.
30omp. § 15, p. 57.
• I'be following Apocrypha are expressly mentioned (Vol. I. p. 467) : The Wisdom of Solo-
mon, Judith, Tobit, History of the Dragon, History of Susannah, the books of the Maccabees,
the Wisdom of Sirach. The Confession of Mogilas, though not formally sanctioning the Apoc-
rypha, quotes them frequently as authority, e. g. Tobit xii. 9, in P. III. Qu. 0, on alms. On
the other hand, the less important Confession of Metrophanes Critopulus, c. 7 (Kimmel, P, II
p. 104 sq.), mentions only twenty-two canonical books of the Old Test., and excludes from
them the Apocrypha, mentioning Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach,
Baruch, and the Maccabees. The Russian Catechism of Philaret omits the Apocrypha in
enumerating the books of the Old Test., for the reason that * they do not exist in Hebrew,'
but adds that * they have been appointed by the fathers to be read by proselytes who are pre-
paring for admission into the Church.1 (See Vol.ll. 451, imdBldckmurc'atruiuiiatiou, pp. 38,39.)
§ 18. THE KYXODS OF CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 1672 AND 1691. 67
hyperdulia, as distinct from the ordinary dulia of saints, and the latria
or worship proper due to God), as also the worshipful veneration of the
cross, the holy Gospels, the holy vessels, the holy places,1 and of the
images of Christ and of the saints.2
In all these important points the Synod of Jerusalem again essen-
tially agrees with the Church of Rome, and radically dissents from
Protestantism.
§ 18. THE SYNODS OF CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 1672 AND 1691.
Three months previous to the Synod of Jerusalem a Synod was held
at Constantinople (January, 1672), which adopted a doctrinal statement
signed by DIONYSIUS, Patriarch of Constantinople, and forty-three dig-
nitaries belonging to his patriarchate.3 It is less complete than the
Confession of Dositheus, but agrees with it on all points, as the author-
ity and infallibility of the Church, the extent of the canon, the seven
mysteries (sacraments), the real sacrifice of the altar, arid the miracu-
lous transformation4 of the elements.
Another Synod was held in Constantinople nineteen years after-
wards, in 1691, under Patriarch CALLINICUB, for the purpose of giving
renewed sanction to the orthodox doctrine of the Eucharist, in opposi-
tion to Logothet John Caryophylus, who had rejected the Romish
theory of transubstantiation, and defended the Calvinistic view of
Cyril Lucar. The Synod condemned him, and declared that the East-
ern Church had always taught a change (jucrajSoXS/) of the elements in
the sense of a transubstantiation (jucroua/Wie), or an actual transforma-
tion of their essence into the body and blood of Christ.5
KvvovfjiGv Kal rtfjt&fAtv rb %v\ov rov npiov rov ZWOTCQIOV aravpov, K. r. \.
T*)V ttKova rov Kvpiov y/juwi/ 'lijcrov X/o. ical rrjg virtpayias Seoroicov ical iravrwv r&v ayiuv
ev ical rt/^w/^j/ ical aaira^ofjL^a.
3 It is called DIONYSII, Pair. Const. , super Calmnistarum erroribus ac reali imprimis pra>-
sentia responsio, and is published in some editions of the Confession of the Synod of Jerusa-
lem; in llarduini Acta Conciliorum, Tom. XI. pp. 274-282; and in the second volume of
Kimmers Monumenta, pp. 214-227.
4 On this the document teaches (KimmeL P. II, p. 218) that when the priest prays, * Make
(rrofyo-ov) this bread the precious blood of thy Christ,' then, by the mysterious and ineffable
operation of the Holy Ghost, 6 plv dpTog fMTCtiroiurai (transmutatur) *»c ovrb tictlvo TO IStov
cr&fjLa rov wrilpoG "Kpurrov Tr/oay/AanKruJc ical &\i)&S>£ ical Kvpiwg (realiter, vere, ac proprie), o
ik otvoc &$ rb Zwoiroibv alfta avrov.
5 1 have not been able to procure the proceedings of this Synod ; they are omitted both by
Hardouin and KimmeL They were first printed at Jassy, 1 C98 ; then in Greek and Latin by
68 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
§ 19. THE DOCTRINAL STANDARDS OF THE BUSSO-GUKEK CHURCH.
Literature.
I. Russian Doctrine and Theology:
The Catechisms of PLATON and PIULABUT (woe below).
R. W. BLAOKMOKK : The Doctrine of tlie. Russian Church, etc,, Aberdeen, 1S45.
W.GUKTTKK (Russian PriOHt aiul Doctor of Divinity) : Kxposition </<• la ilwtrtiw dc rrgUw eatholiquo
orthodoxe de Rwsie, Paris?, I860.
THBOPUANEB PBOOOPOWIOZ: Tlwlogia Christiana, orthodoxa, Xuuigsborg, 1773-1775, f» voln. (abridged,
Moscow, 1802).
HVAO. KIBPINSKI : Compendium orthodoxce theoloyice, Lips, 1786.
II. Worship and Ritual :
The divine Liturgy 0/Si1. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (the Liturgy used in tlie Orthodox Mantcru Church), Greek
ed.by DANIEL, Co&Liturg. Tom. IV. I*. II. p. Bti7, etc. ; by J. M. NKAMC, iu IWwitirr Lihtrtjhw, *t<\ tuition,
London, 1868; English translations by KINO, NMALK, BUKTT, COYJO, J. FMKKMAN You\<» (i\w Ia>t publ.
New York, 1865, as No. VI. oi'the 'Papers of the Itiusso-Greek Oummittoo1). i'oinp, nlK<» tli<' t«mir« fourth
volume of DANiBr.'s Codex Ltourg. (which gives the Oriental Liturgies), and NKAUC'H IWinttiH- tAturtih%
and his Introd. to the History of the Holy Kustcrn Church (Lund. 18«0).
JOHN QL.BN Kiiso (Anglican ChupUiin at St. Petersburg) : TheRitw and Cerniunvtw <>/ th? Grwk Church
in Russia^ Loud. 1772. Very instructive,
III. History and Present Condition of the Russian Church :
ALEX. I>R STOUBDSSA.: Considerations our la doctrine ct Vwprit de Vtylixt tirtliatlow, Wclmnr, 1810,
STBAHL: Contribution to Russian Church History, Hallo, 1827; and Uirturtj of the JKintmfttn Chttrch,
Halle, 1830.
MotrRAviBFF : History of the Church of Russia, St. Petersburg, 1840; translated by IJlackmore, Oxford,
1842. Comes down to 1721.
PINKERTON : Russia, London, 1833.
HAXTIIAUSKN : Researches on Russia, German and French, 1847-52, 8 vole.
TUEINEK : Die Staats-Kirche Russlands, 1853.
H. J. SOHMITT: Kritische Geschichte der n&uffriechischen und der russisehen Kirchc, Mainz, 2(1 ed. 1864.
Prince Aua. GALITZIN : L'eglise Qrceco-Ru88<>, Paris, 1861.
Dean STANLEY : Lectures on the History of the Eastern CMtroJi, Lond. and N. Y. 180*2, Loot. 1X.-XH.
BOISSAET^ : L'eylise de. Rusw'e, Paris, 1867, 2 vols.
FHILABET (Archbishop of Tschernigow) : Geschichte der Kirche ttuwlandti, traiiHl by Bhtmonthal, 1872.
BASABOFP: Russische orthodoxe Kirche. Mn Umriss ihrer ISntotehwiff u. ihren falHttw, Btutttfart, 1H78.
Also the Occasional Papers of the 'Eastern Church Associations' of the Church of Knglaud and the
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, publ. iu Lond. (Rivington's), and N. York, ninco 1804,
The latest doctrinal standards of Greek Christianity are the authorised
Catechisms and Ohnrch-books of the orthodox Church of Ru6&ia,by far
the most important and hopeful branch of the Eastern Communion,
Russia received Christianity from tlie Byzantine Empire. Cyril and
Methodius, two monks of Constantinople, preached the gospel to the
Bulgarians on the Danube after the middle of the ninth century, trans-
lated the Scriptures1 into the Slavonic language (creating the Slavonic
alphabet in quaint Greek characters), and thus laid the foundation of
Slavonic literature and civilization. This event "was contemporary
with the founding of the Russian Empire by Baric, of the Norman
race (A.D. 862), and succeeded by half a century the founding of the
Eusebius Renaudot, together with some other Greek writings on the Kucharist, Pads, 1 700 ;
in German by Heineccius, in his Abbildung der alten und neuen Griechischen Kirch?, 2 Parts,
Leipz. 1711, Appendix, p. 40, etc. So says Rud. llofmann (in his Symbolik, Leipz, 1857,
p. 135), who has paid careful attention to the Greek Church.
1 The Psalms and the New Testament, with the exception of the Apocalypse,
§ 19. toocrrtUNAL STANDARDS OF THE &USSO-GREEK CHURCH. 69
German Empire under Charlemagne, in close connection with Rome
(A.D. 800). As the latter was a substitute for the Western Roman
Empire, so the former was destined to take the place of the Eastern
Roman Empire, and looks forward to the reconyuest of Constantinople,
as its natural capital. The barbarous Russians submitted, in the tenth
century, without resistance, to Christian baptism by immersion, at the
command of their Grand Duke, Vladimir, who himself was brought
over to Christianity by a picture on the last judgment, and his marriage
to a sister of the Greek Emperor Basil. In this wholesale conversion
every thing is characteristic : the influence of the picture, the effect of
marriage, the power of the civil ruler, the military command, the pas-
sive submission of the people.
Since that time the Greek Church has been the national religion of
the Slavonic Russians, and identified with all their fortunes and mis-
fortunes. For a long time they were subject to the jurisdiction of the
Patriarch of Constantinople. But after the fall of this city (1453) the
Metropolitan of Moscow became independent (1461), and a century
later (January, 1589) he was raised by Patriarch Jeremiah II. of Con-
stantinople, then on a collecting tour in Russia, to the dignity of a
Patriarch of equal rank with the other four (of Constantinople, Alex-
andria, Antioch, Jerusalem). Moscow was henceforward the holy city,
the Rome of Russia.
In the beginning of the eighteenth century, Peter the Great, a sec-
ond Constantino, founded St. Petersburg (1703), made this city the
political and ecclesiastical capital of his Empire, and created, in the
place of the Patriarchate of Moscow, the 'Most Holy Governing Syn-
od/ with the Czar as the head (1721). This organic change was sanc-
tioned by the Eastern Patriarchs (1723), who look upon the emperor-
pope of Russia as their future deliverer from the intolerable yoke of
the Turks.
[NOTE. — Since the revolution of 1917 and the assassination of the Czar, the position,
of the Russian Churoh has undergone a radical change. The Soviet government has
passed from a law abolishing the union of Church and State to a relentless war against
all religion and religious exercises, the confiscation of Church property, the suppression
of religious liberty, the imprisonment and execution of clerical personages, and even to
a policy of active atheistic propaganda. Conforming to the new civil order, the Holy
Sober — council — met, August, 1917, with 564 delegates present, of whom 278 were lay-
men, and constituted Tikhon (1866-1925) Most holy Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia,
thus re-establishing the patriarchate after an interval of two centuries. Tikhon resisted
70 THE CREEDS OP CHRISTENDOM.
the Soviet acts instituting civil marriage and disestablishing the Church, and placed thi»
state officials under excommunication. The government replied by further legislation
hostile to the Church, and Tikhon was put under arrest and resigned the patriarchal o,
1922. In the mean time a 'reforming' organization, calling itself the 'Living Church,'
was effected, which acknowledged the Soviet revolution and made the 'white clergy' —
in contrast to the monks — eligible to the episcopal office. The Sober of April, 102-1,
received greetings from Dr. Blake of the Methodist Episcopal Church, disavowed Tikhon's
anti-Soviet deliverances, endorsed the separation of Church and State, and granted to
widowed and divorced priests the right of remarriage. A third Sober affirmed that
supreme ecclesiastical authority resided in itself and not in the patriarch, a declaration
accepted by Gregory VII, oecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, other lOaHtern patri-
archs dissenting. The Tikhon wing was continued under Peter, Metropolitan of Kru-
titsky, whom Tikhon had designated as his successor. Peter was banished for anti-
Soviet policies, and his place filled by Abp. Sergius, who himself was imprinonod but
released, 1927, after promising to support the existing civil government. The 6migr6
bishops, with Serbia as a rallying-place, have favored the restoration of the empire, and
June 30, 1930, Sorgius deposed Eulogius from the post of so-called supremo bishop of
the Russian Church outside of Russia. Soviet legislation, 1930, confirmed all previous
acts calculated to blot out religious convictions and ritual. Ib forbids the teaching of
religion to persons under eighteen, the organization of meetings of women and children
for purposes of prayer and biblical and literary study or for sowing, the organization
under Church influence of libraries and reading-rooms, and even measure intended to
give sanitary and medical assistance. It prohibits the teaching of any form of religious
belief in educational establishments, and the formation of all boyH' and girlH' clubs in
church buildings. Religious teaching is treated as "anti-revolutionary activity." Tho
secret propaganda of religion among the masses is forbidden, and ministera of religion,
including rabbis and nuns, who continue to follow their religion are disfranchised and
made ineligible for public office. Bibles and prayer-books are confincatocl. Church
buildings are put at the State's disposal. Articles of gold and silver and precious stones
are to be given up upon the discontinuance of a house of worship, and places of worship
having a historic or artistic value pass to the State. Processions on fcntival days arc
forbidden, as also is the observance of Christmas, Easter, and other Church feasts. In
addition to such laws, the Soviet has carried out its destructive policy by filma and posters
ridiculing and blaspheming Christianity. By governmental order or the populace, multi-
tudes of icons have been destroyed and protended bodies of saints dishonored and shown
to be made of wax or straw. The treatment of the Russian Church and clergy has called
forth from the pope and the Church of England resolutions against the government's
policy, and letters of sympathy. Since 1914, friendly gestures have been made from Rome
calculated to win favor for the Roman Church. In 1920, Ephraom of Edessa was enrolled
among the doctors of the Church. The Oriental College in Rome has been enlarged.
In 1921, Benedict XV. addressed the Russians as 'our distant children who, though sep-
arated from us by the barriers of centuries, are all the nearer our paternal heart, tho
greater their misfortunes are.1 In 1929, Pius XL issued an appeal in Italian for prayer
for 'our brethren in Russia/ which spoke of 'the sacrilege heapod upon the priests and
believers, and the violence done to the conscience by the Soviets.' Tho pontiff appointed
a solemn mass to be celebrated over St. Peter's tomb, March 19, 1930, and called for
the help of 'the Immaculate Virgin, Mother of God, her most chaste spouse, St. Joseph,
patron of the Church universal, John Chrysostom and other patron saints of tho Russians,
and of all saints, especially St. Therfcse of the Cradle of Jesus, the sweet thaumaturge
of Lisieux.' In the form of prayer which Pius added for general use, the petition was
made that the Russians may return 'to the one fold and the communion of tho Catholic
§ 19. DOCTRINAL STANDARDS OF THE RUSSO-GREEK CHURCH. 71
Church, ' and an indulgence of 300 days offered to all making the prayer piously. Reso-
lutions passed by the Convocations Canterbury and York, 1930, called for special prayers
in tho c'hurnhos at the morning and evening services, March 16. — ED.]
We have already seen that the < Orthodox Confession,' or the first
systematic and complete exhibition of the modern Greek faith, is the
product of a Russian prelate, Peter Mogilas of Kieff. It was followed,
and practically superseded, by other catechisms, which are much better
adapted to the religious instruction of the young.
1. The Catechism of PLATON, Metropolitan of Moscow (died 181S),
one of the very few Russian divines whose name is known beyond
their native land.1 lie was the favorite of the Empress Catherine II.
(died 1796), and, for a time, of her savage son, the Emperor Paul (as-
sassinated 1801), and at the end of his life he encouraged the Emperor
Alexander I. in the terrible year of the French invasion and the de-
struction of Moscow. When the French atheist Diderot began a con-
versation with the sneering remark, c There is no God,' Platon instantly
replied, ' The fool says in his heart, There is no God.' He was a great
preacher and the leader of a somewhat milder type of Russian ortho-
doxy, not disinclined to commune with the outside world. His Cate-
chism was originally prepared for his pupil, the Grand Duke Paul
Petrovitsch, and shows some influence of the evangelical system by its
tendency to go directly to the Bible.
2. The Catechism of PHILAEMT, revised, authorized, and published
by the Holy Synod of St. Petersburg. It is translated into several
languages, and since 1839 generally used in the schools and churches
of Russia. It was sent to all the Eastern Patriarchs, and unanimously
approved by them.2
1 * Orthodox Doctrine, or Summary of Christian Diriniti/;' first published 17G2 m Russian,
and translated into eight languages : in English, ed. by R. Pinkerton, Edinb. 1814 ; German
ed.,"Riga, 1770; Latin ed,, Moscow, 1774. Blnekmore (1. c. p. vii.) speaks of three Cate-
chisms of Platon, which probably differ only in size.
3 Philaret wrote two Catechisms — a shorter one. called ' Elements of Christian Lfarniny ;
or, a Short Sacred History and a Short Catechism,' St. Petersburg, ar, the Synodical Press,
184-0 (only about twelve pages), and a longer one under the title. * A JPttlf Catechism of the
Orthodox Catholic Church of the East, examined and apvrowd by the Most Holy Governing
Synod, and published for the Use of Schools and of all Orthodox Christians, by order of His
Jmperial Majesty,' Moscow, at the Synodical Press, 1839 (English translation of Black-
more, Aberdeen, 1 845). Most of the German works on Symbolics ignore Philaret altogether.
&ven Llofnmim (p. I JIG) and Gass (p. 440) barely mention him. We give his Larger Catechism
in the second volume.
VOL. I.— F
72 THE CKEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Pliilaret (born 1782, died 1867) was for forty-seven years (1820-67)
Metropolitan oil Moscow. lie was intrusted with the important State
secret of the will of Alexander I., and crowned his two successors
(Nicholas I. and Alexander II.). lie represents, in learning, eloquence,
and ascetic piety, the best phase of the Russian State Church in the
nineteenth century.1
His longer Catechism (called 9k full catechism) is, upon the whole,
the ablest and clearest summary of Eastern orthodoxy, and shows a dis-
position to support every doctrine by direct Scripture testimony. It
follows the plan and division of the Orthodox Confession of Mogilaa,
and conforms to its general type of teaching, but it IB more dear,
simple, evangelical, and much better adapted for practical use. In a
number of introductory questions it discusses the meaning of a cate-
chism, the nature and necessity of right faith and good works, divine
revelation, the holy tradition and Holy Scripture (as the two channels
of the divine revelation and the joint rule of faith and discipline), the
Canon of the Scriptures (exclusive of the Apocrypha, because 'not writ-
ten in Hebrew'), with some account of the several books of the Old and
"New Testaments, and the composition of the Catechism. This is divided
into three parts, like the Confession of Mogilas, according to the three
cardinal virtues (1 Cor. xiii. 13).
First Part : ON FAITH. An Exposition of the Nicene Creed, ar-
ranged in twelve articles. In the doctrine of the Churcli the Protest-
ant distinction of the visible and invisible Church is, in a modified
sense, adopted ; Christ is declared to be the only and ever-abiding Head
of the Church, and it is stated that the division of the Church into many
particular and independent organizations, as those of Jerusalem, An-
tioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Russia (Rome, Wittenberg, Geneva,
and Canterbury are ignored), does not hinder them from being spirit-
ually members cof the one body of the Universal Church, from having
one Head, Christ, and one spirit of faith and of grace.'
1 Dean Stanley, who saw him in Moscow in 1857, praises his striking and impressive man-
ner as a preacher, his gentleness, his dignified courtesy and affability, and associates him
with a reactionary revival of mediaeval sanctity, which had its parallel in the PuseyiHrn of the
Church of England. The Scottish Bishop of Moray and Ross, who called on him in behalf
of the Eastern Church Association in 1 866, describes him as the most venerated and beloved
man in the Russian Empire, and as * gentle, humble, and pious.' Com)). Wouchkow, Memoirs
of Philaret^ Moscow, 1868 ; Select Sermons of Phtiaret* transt, from the Russian, London
r,Jos. Masters), 1878,
§ 19. DOCTRINAL STANDARDS OF THE RUSSO-GKEEK CHURCH. 73
Second Part : ON HOPE. An Exposition of the Lord's Prayer (in seven
petitions), and of the nine Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount.
Third Part : ON LOVE OR CHARITY. An Exposition of the Decalogue
as teaching, in two tables, love to God and love to our neighbor. The
last question is : c What caution do we need when we seem to ourselves
to have f ullilled any commandment ? A. We must then dispose our
hearts according to the words of Jesus Christ : " When ye have done all
those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable serv-
ants; we have done that which was our duty to do" (Luke xvii. 10).'
3. Finally, we may mention, as secondary standards of Eussian ortho-
doxy and discipline, the Primer or Spelling- BooJc, and a Treatise on
The Duty of Parish Priests.1
The Primer contains the rudiments of religious learning for chil-
dren and the common people, viz., daily prayers (including the Lord's
Prayer, and the c Hail Mary, Virgin Mother of God,' yet without the
' Pray for us' of the Latin formula), the Nicene Creed, the Ten Com-
mandments (the second and fourth abridged), with brief explanations
and short moral precepts.
The Treatise on The Duty of Parish Priests was composed by
George Konissky, Archbishop of Mogileff (died 1Y95), aided by Par-
thenius Sopkofsky, Bishop of Smolensk, and first printed at St. Peters-
burg inl/T76. All candidates for holy orders in the-Kussian Seminaries
are examined on the contents of this book. It is mainly disciplinary
and pastoral, a manual for the priests, directing them in their duties as
teachers, and as administrators of the mysteries or sacraments. But doc-
trine is incidentally touched, and it is worthy of remark that this Treatise
approaches more nearly to the evangelical principle of the supremacy
of the Bible in matters of Christian faith and Christian life than any
deliverance of the Eastern Church.2
1 Both translated by Blackmore, 1. c.
* See Part I No.VIIL-XIII. pp. 160-164 in Blackmore's version: 'All the articles of
the faith are contained in the Word of God, that is, in the hooks of the Old and New Testa-
ments. . . . The Word of God is the source, foundation, and perfect rule, hoth of our
faith and of the good works of the law. . . . The writings of the holy Fathers are of great
use . . , but neither the writings of the holy Fathers nor the traditions of the Church
are to be confounded or equaled with the Word of God and his Commandments.'
74: THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
§ 20. ANGLO-OATHOLIO CORRESPONDENCE WITH THK
OHUBOII.
The Eeformation of the sixteenth century proceeded entirely from
the bosom of Latin or Western Catholicism. The Greek or Eastern
Church had no part in the great controversy, and took no notice of
it, until it was brought to its attention from without. The antago-
nism of the Greek Communion to Western innovations, especially to
the claims of the Papacy, seemed to open the prospect of potwiblo inter-
communion and co-operation. But, so far, all the approaches to this
effect on the part of Protestants have failed
1. The first attempt was made by Lutheran divines in the sixteenth
century, and ended in the condemnation of the Augsburg Confession.1
2. Of a different kind was Cyril's movement, in the seventeenth cen-
tury, to protestantize the Eastern Church from within, which resulted
in a stronger condemnation of Calvinism and Lutheranism.2
3. The correspondence of the Anglican Non-Jurors with Russia and
the East, 1T17-1 723, had no effect whatever.
Two high-church English Bishops, called * Non-Jurors' (because they
refused to renounce their oath of allegiance to King James IL, and
to transfer it to the Prince of Orange), in connection with two Scottish
Bishops, assumed, October, 1717, the responsibility of corresponding
with the Eussian Czar, Peter the Great, and the Eastern Patriarchs.3
They were prompted to this step by a visit of an Egyptian Bishop to
England, who collected money for the impoverished patriarchal see of
Alexandria, and probably still more by a desire to get aid and comfort
from abroad in their schismatical isolation. They characteristically
styled themselves ' The Catholic Remainder in Britain.'
After a delay of several years, the Patriarchs, under date, Constanti-
nople, September, 1723, sent their ultimatum, requiring, as a term of
communion, absolute submission of the British to all the dogmas of
the Greek Church. * Those,' they wrote, * who are disposed to agree
1 See above, § 13.
*See§§ 15-18,
3 The letters of the four Bishops signing themselves * JEREMIAS, Primus Anyti® Episcopus;
AROHIBALDTJS, Scoto-Britannia Episcopus; JACOBUS, Scoto-Britannice, Episcopus; THOMAS,
Anylice Episcopw, ' are given by Lathbmy, in his History of the Non-Jurors^ pp. #09-801,
as documentary proof of their doctrinal status, but the answers are omitted.
§ 20. ANGLO-CATHOLIC CORRESPONDENCE. 7*5
with us in the Divine doctrines of the Orthodox faith must necessarily
follow and submit to what has been defined and determined by ancient
Fathers and the Holy OEcuineincal Synods from the time of the Apos-
tles and their Holy Successors, the Fathers of our Church, to this time.
We say they must submit to them with sincerity and obedience, and
without any scruple or dispute. And this is a sufficient answer to
what you have written.' With this answer they forwarded the decrees
of the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672.
The Russians were more polite. The ' Most Holy Governing Synod'
of St. Petersburg, in transmitting the ultimatum of the Eastern Patri-
archs, proposed, in the name of the Czar, i to the Most Reverend the
.Bishops of the Remnant of the Catholic Church in Great Britain, our
Brethren most beloved in the Lord,' that they should send two delegates
to Russia to hold a friendly conference, in the name and spirit of Christ,
with two members to be chosen by the Russians, that it may be more
easily ascertained what may be yielded and given up by one to the
other ; what, on the other hand, may and ought for conscience' sake
to be absolutely denied.1
But such a conference was never held. The death of Peter (1725)
put an end to negotiations. Archbishop Wake, of Canterbury, wrote
a letter to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, in which he exposed the Non-
Jurors as disloyal schismatics and pretenders. The Eastern Patriarchs
accused the Anglicans of being c Lutheran o-Calvinists,' and the Russian
Church historian, Mouravieff, in speaking of the correspondence, repre-
sents them as being infected with the same < German heresy,' which had
been previously condemned by the Orthodox Church.2
4. A far more serious and respectable attempt to effect intercommu-
nion between the Anglican and Russo-Greek Churches was begun in
1862, with the high authority of the Convocation of Canterbury, and
the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the
United States. The ostensible occasion was furnished by the multipli-
1 The two letters of the Holy Synod, the one signed Moscow, February, 1723, the other
without date, are given by Blackmore, Doctrine of the Russian Church, Pref. pp. xxvi.-xxviii.
The anonymous author (probably Dr. Young, now Bishop in Florida) of No. II. of the Papers
of c the Eastern Church Association' supplies the signatures of nine Church dignitaries of Kus-
sia from personal inspection of the archives of the Holy Synod, at a visit to St. Petersburg,
April, 1864.
* History of the Church of Russia, translated by Blackmore, pp. 286 sq,, 407 sqq.
Y6 THE CREEDS OP CHRISTENDOM,
cation of Russo-Greeks on the Pacific coast, and by the
of securing decent burial for Anglican traveler in the Kast, but the
real cause lies much deeper. It is closely connected with the powerful
Anglo-Catholic movement, which arose in Oxford in 1883, and haw ever
since been aiming to de-protestantize the Anglican Church. Ilundivdrt
of her priests and laymen, headed by Dr. John II. Newman, seceded
to Rome; while others, less logical or more loyal to the Church of their
fathers, are afraid of the charms or corruptions of the Papacy, and
look hopefully to intercommunion with the Holy Catholic Orthodox
and Apostolic Mother Church of the East to satisfy their longing for
Catholic unity, and to strengthen their opposition to Protestantism and
Romanism. The writings of the late Dr. John Mason Neale, and Dr.
Pusey's JEirenicon, contributed not a little towards creating an interest
in this direction.
In the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in
the United States, held in New York, October, 1862, a joint committee
was appointed ' to consider the expediency of opening communication
with the Russo-Greek Church, to collect authentic information upon
the subject, and to report to the next General Convention.' Soon after-
wards, July 1, 1863, the Convocation of Canterbury appointed a simi-
lar committee, looking to ' such ecclesiastical intercommunion with the
Orthodox East as should enable the laity and clergy of either Church to
join in the sacraments and offices of the other without forfeiting the
communion of their own Church.' The Episcopal Church in Scotland
likewise fell in with the movement. These committees corresponded
with each other, and reported from time to time to their authorities.
Two Eastern Church Associations were formed, one in England and
one in America, for the publication of interesting information on the
doctrines and worship of the Russo-Greek Church. Visits were made
to Russia, fraternal letters and Christian courtesies were exchanged,
and informal conferences between Anglican and Russian dignitaries
were held in London, St. Petersburg, and Moscow.1
1 See the details in the Occasional Papers of the two Eastern Church Associations, published
since 1864 in London (Kivington's) and in New York, and the Reports in the Journal of the
General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, hold in New
York, 1868, Append. IV. p, 427, and Append. XI. p. 480, and of the Convention in Baltimore,
1871 , Append. VI. pp. 565-85. These reports are signed hy Bishops Whittingham, White-
house, Odenheimer, Coxe, Young, and others. A curious incident in this correspondence, not
§ 20. ANGLO-CATHOLIC CORRESPONDENCE. 77
The Eusso-Greeks could not but receive with kindness and courtesy
such flattering approaches from two of the most respectable Churches
of Christendom., but they showed no disposition whatever either to for-
get or to learn or to grant any thing beyond the poor privilege of
burial to Anglicans in consecrated ground of the Orthodox (without,
however, giving them any right of private property). Some were will-
ing to admit that the Anglican Church, by retaining Episcopacy and
respect for Catholic antiquity, c attached her back by a strong cable to
the ship of the Oatholio Church ; while the other Protestants, having cut
this cable, drifted out at, sea.' Yet they could not discover any essen-
tial doctrinal difference. They found strange novelties in the Thirty-
nine Articles ; they took especial offense at Art. 19, which asserts that
the Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred ; they
expressed serious scruples about the validity of Anglican orders, on
account of a flaw in Archbishop Parker's ordination, and on account
of the second marriage of many Anglican priests and bishops (which
they consider a breach of continency, and a flagrant violation of Paul's
express prohibition, according to their interpretation of jutac ywauco?
avSpa, 1 Tim. iii. 2) ; they can not even recognize Anglican baptism,
because it is not administered by trine immersion.
On the other hand, the Eusso-Greeks insist on the expulsion of the
Filioque, which is their main objection to Rome; the recognition of the
seventh oecumenical Council ; the invocation of the Holy Virgin and
the Saints ; the veneration of icons ; prayers for the departed ; seven
sacramental mysteries ; trine immersion ; a mysterious transformation
(/uerovotfwcnc) of the eucharistic elements ; the eucharistic sacrifice for
the living and the dead.1
5. The latest phase of the Anglo-Greek movement is connected with
the Old Catholic reunion Conferences in Bonn, 1874 and 1875.2 Here the
mentioned in these documents, was the celebration of Greek mass, by a Russian ex-priest of
doubtful antecedents, in the Episcopal Trinity Chapel of New York, on the anniversary of the
Czar Alexander II., March 2, 18G5.
1 See the documents in the Journal of the General Convention for 1871, pp. 507-577, viz.,
the answers of Gregory, Patriarch of Constantinople, dated Sept. 26, 1869, to a letter of the
Archbishop of Canterbury, accompanied by a Greek copy of the English Liturgy ; the report
of the Greek Archbishop of Syra to the Holy Synod of Greece, concerning his visit to En-
gland (1870) j also the report of an interesting conference between the Greek Archbishop of
Syra and the Anglican bishop of Kly (Dr. Browne, the author of a Commentary on the
Thirty-nine Articles), held February 4, 1870, where all the chief points of difference were dis-
cussed in a friendly Christian spirit, but without result.
9 See the results of the Bonn Conferences, at the close of Vol. II. pp. 545-554.
78 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Filioque was surrendered as a peace-offering to the Orientals ; but the
Orientals made no concession on their part. It is not likely that the
Anglican Church will sacrifice her own peace, the memory of her re-
formers and martyrs, and a Protestant history and literature of three
centuries to an uncongenial union with the Russo-Greek Church in her
present un reformed state.
§ 21. THE EASTERN SECTS: NESTORIANS, JACOBITES, COPTS, ARMENIANS.
Literature.
I, TheNKBTORTANS:
KBBDJEBU (Nestorian, d. 1318) : Liber Margarita de veritatejftdei, in Angelo Mai's Script, veter. Nova Col*
Z«cMo,Vol. XII. p. 317.
Jos. SIM. ABSKMANI (R. C., d. 1678) : TJe Syria Nestoriawte, in his Bibl Or., Rom. 1710-28, Tom. III. Pt It
GIBBON : Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap, xlvii. near the end.
E. SMITH and H. G. 0. D WIGHT: Researches in Armenia, with a Visit to the Nestorian and Chaldean
Christiana of Oornvtah, etc., 2 vols. Boston, 1833.
JxrsTtN PERKINS : A Residence of Eight Years in Persia, Andovcr, 1848.
W. ETHKRIDGK: The Syrian Churches, their Karly History, Liturgies, and Literature, Loud. 1840,
GBO. Fancy BAXXMCB: The Nestorians and their Rituals, Illustrated (with colored platen), 2 vols. Loud.
1852.
H. NEWOOMB: A Cyclopaedia of Missions, New York, 1836, p. 588 pq.
PETEBMANN: Article Nestorianer, Herzog's Theol. Kncyklop. Vol. X. (1SSR), pp. 279-288.
RUFUS ANDKRSON (late For. Sec. Am. Board of 0. For. Missions: llqniWioation of the Mwpel in Mble
Lands; History of the Missions of the Amer. Board of Cowni.for J?or. Misti. to the Mental Ohurehcs. BOH-
ton, 18T2, 2 vols.
On the Nestoriau controversy which gave rise to the Nestorian sect, see my Church History, Vol. III.
p. T15 sq., and the works quoted there ; also p. 729.
II. The MoNOi'uvstTKS (Jacobites, Copts, Abyssinians, Armenians, Maronltos):
EUSBB. RBNATJDOT (R. C., d. 1T20) : Uistoria Patriarcliarum Alexandrinonm Jacobitarwn a D. Marco
usque ad finem scec. xiii., Par. 1713. Also by the same: Liturffiarum Ortentalium Collcctio> Par. 1710,
2 vols. 4to.
Jos. SIM. ASSBMANI (R. C.) : Bioliotheca orientalis, Rom, 1719 sqq,, Tom. IT., which treats Ik Mrtptorlbua
Syria Monophysitis.
MIOHAKL L-R QUIEN (R. C., d. 1733) : Oricns Christianus, Par. 1740, 3 vols. folio (Vote. II. and III.).
VByssrfcRR DB LA CROZE : Histoire du Christianisme d'JEthiope et tfArmenie, La Hayo, 1789.
GIBBON : Decline and Fall of the Roman JBrnpfre, chap, xlvii.
MAKRIZI (Mohammedan, an historian and jurist at Cairo, died 1441): UMoria Coytorum Chrtotia-
norum (Arabic and Latin), ed. //. J. Wetxer, Sulzbach, 1828 ; a better edition by 1<\ W&#tenf«Mt with trans-
lation and annotations, Gottingeu, 1845.
J. E. T. WaTsoir: KirchlicJw Statistik, Berlin, 1840, Bd. I. p. 22« eq.
JOHN MASON NBAMC (Anglican) : The Patriarchate of Alexandria, London, 1847, 2 vols. Also, A His-
tory of the Holy Eastern Chivrch, London, 1850, 2 vols. (Vol. II. contains among other things the Arme-
nian and Copto-Jacobite Liturgies.)
E. DTTLAURIBR: Histoire, dogmes, traditions, et liturgie de Valise Armenia™, Par. 1859.
Awraxni PBNRHVN STANLKY: Leotures on the History of the Kastern Church, New York, 1H62, p, 92.
B. F. K. FORTKSOUE : The Armenian Church. With Appendix by S. C. Malan, London, 1872.
Rxrrus ANDERSON : JRepublicatton of the Gospel in Bible Lands, quoted above.
SOIIAITF: Church ffistorp,V^\. III. pp. 884 sqq. and 770 sqq.
Compare accounts in numerous works of Eastern travel, and in, missionary periodicals, ewpodally the
Missionary Herald, and the Annual Reports of the American Board of Foreign Missions.
Besides the Orthodox Greek Church there are scattered in the East,
mostly under Mohammedan and Russian rule, ancient Christian sects,
the Nestorians and Monophysites. They represent petrified chapters
of Church history, but at the same time fruitful fields for Roman
Catholic and Protestant Missions. They owe their origin to the Chris-
tological controversies of the fifth century, and perpetuate, the one the
§ 21. THE EASTERN SECTS. 79
Nestorian, the other the Eutychian heresy, though no more as living
issues, but as dead traditions. They show the tenacity of Ohristological
error. The Nestorians protest against the third oecumenical Council
(431), the Monophysites against the fourth (451). In these points of
dispute the Latin and the orthodox Protestant Churches agree with the
Orthodox Greek Church against the schismatics.
In other respects the Nestorians and Monophysites betray their Ori-
ental character and original affinity with the Greek Church. They
regard Scripture and tradition as co-ordinate sources of revelation and
rules of faith. They accept the Nicene Creed without the Filiogue ;
they have an episcopal and patriarchal hierarchy, and a ritualistic form
of worship, only less developed than the orthodox. They use in
their service their ancient native languages, although these have become
obsolete and unintelligible to them, since they mostly speak now the
Arabic. They honor pictures and relics of saints, but not to the same
extent as the Greeks and Russians. The Bible is not forbidden, but
practically almost unknown among the people. Their creeds are
mostly contained in their liturgies.
They supported the Arabs and Turks in the overthrow of the Byzan-
tine Empire, and in turn were variously favored by them, and upheld in
their separation from the Orthodox Greek Church. They are sunk in
ignorance and superstition, but, owing to their prejudice against the
Greek Church, they are more accessible to Western influence.
Providence has preserved these Eastern sects, like the Jews, un-
changed to this day, doubtless for wise purposes. They may prove
entering wedges for the coming regeneration of the East and the con-
version of the Mohammedans.
I. The NESTORIANS, in Turkey and Persia, are called after Nestorius,
Patriarch of Constantinople. He was condemned by the Council of
Ephesus, 431, for so teaching the doctrine of two natures in Christ as
virtually to deny the unity of person, and for refusing to call Mary
* the Mother of God' (&COTOICOC, 2)ei/para), and he died in exile about
440. His followers call themselves CHAUX&AN or SYRIAN Christians.
They flourished for several centuries, and spread far into Arabia, In-
dia, and even to China and Tartary. Mohammed is supposed to have
derived his imperfect knowledge of Christianity from a Nestorian
monk, Sergius. But by persecution, famine, war, and pestilence, they
80 THE CREEDS GIT CHRISTENDOM.
have been greatly reduced. The Thomcis Christians of East India are
a branch of them, and so called from the Apostle Thomas, \vho i& sup-
posed to have preached on the coast of Malabar.
The Nestorians hold fast to the dyophysite Christology of their mas-
ter, and protest against the Council of Ephesus, for teaching virtually
the Eutychian heresy, and unjustly condemning Ncstorius. They can
not conceive of a human nature without a human personality, and infer
two independent hypostases from the existence of two natures in ( Jhrist
They object to the orthodox view, that it confounds the divine and hu-
man, or that it teaches a contradiction, viz., two natures and one person.
The only alternative to them seems either two natures and two persons,
or one person and one nature. From their Christology it follows that
Mary was only the mother of the man Jesus. They therefore repudiate
the worship of Mary as the Mother of God; also the use of images
(though they retain the sign of the cross), the doctrine of purgatory
(though they have prayers for the dead), and transubstantiation (though
they hold the real presence of Christ in the eucharist) ; and they differ
from the Greek Church by greater simplicity of worship. They are sub-
ject to a peculiar hierarchical organization, with eight orders, from the
catholicus or patriarch to the sub-deacon and reader. The five lower
orders, including the priests, may marry ; in former times even the
bishops, archbishops, and patriarchs had this privilege. Their fasts are
numerous and strict. Their feast-days begin with sunset, as among the
Jews. The patriarch and the bishops eat no flesh. The patriarch is
chosen always from the same family ; he is ordained by three metro-
politans. The ecclesiastical books of the Nestorians are written in the
Syriac language.
II. The MONOPHYSITBS, taken together, outnumber the Nestorians,
and are scattered over the mountains, villages, and deserts of Armenia,
Syria, Egypt, and Abyssinia. They are divided into four distinct
sects : the JACOBITES in Syria ; the COPTS in Egypt, with their eccle-
siastical descendants in Abyssinia ;x the ARMENIANS, and the ancient
MARONITES on Mount Lebanon (who were Monothelites, but have been
mostly merged into the Roman Church).
1 The Abyssinian Church receives its Patriarch (Abuna, i. e. Our Father) from the Copts,
but retains some peculiar customs, and presents a strange mixture of Christianity with super-
stition and barbarism. See my Church History, Vol. III. p. 778,
§ 21. THJE EASTERN SECtfS. 8l
The Armenians (numbering about three millions and a half) excel
all the rest in numbers, intelligence, and enterprise, and are most ac-
cessible to Protestant missionaries.
The Monophysites have their name from their distinctive doctrine,
that Christ had but one nature (juoi/n ^vcnc)? which was condemned by
the fourth oecumenical Council of Chalcedon. They are the antipodes
of the Nestorians, whom they call Dyophysites. They agree with the
Council of Ephesus (431) which condemned Nestorius, but reject the
Council of Chalcedon (451). They differ, however, somewhat from the
Eutychean heresy of an absorption of the human nature by the divine,
as held by Eutyches (a monk of Constantinople, died after 451), and
teach that Christ had one composite nature (jita 0wic o-uv&eroc or /xfa
<t>iHrts JW//). They make the humanity of Christ a mere accident of
the immutable divine substance. Their main argument against the
orthodox or Chalcedonian Christology is that the doctrine of two na-
tures necessarily leads to that of two persons, and thereby severs the
one Christ into two sons of God. They regarded the nature as some-
thing common to all individuals of a species (KOWOV), yet as never
existing simply as such, but only in individuals. Their liturgical shib-
boleth was, God has been crucified, which they introduced into the tri-
sagion, and hence they were also called Theopaschites.
With the exception of the Chalcedonian Ohristology, the Monophysite
sects hold most of the doctrines, institutions, and rites of the Orthodox
Greek Church, but in simpler and less pronounced form. They reject,
or at least do not recognize, the FiUoque; they hold to the mass, or the
eucharistic sacrifice, with a kind of transubstantiation ; leavened bread
in the Lord's Supper; baptismal regeneration by trine immersion;
seven sacraments (yet not explicitly, since they either have no definite
term for sacrament, or no settled conception of it) ; the patriarchal pol-
ity ; monasticism ; pilgrimages and fasting ; the requisition of a single
marriage for priests and deacons (bishops are not allowed to marry) ;
the prohibition of the eating of blood or of things strangled. On the
other hand, they know nothing of purgatory and indulgences, and have
a simpler worship than the Greeks and Komans. According to their
doctrine, all men after death go into Hades, a place alike without sor-
row or joy ; after the general judgment they enter into heaven, or are
82 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
cast into hell ; and meanwhile the intercessions and pious works of the
living have an influence on the final destiny of the departed.
NOTE ON RUSSIAN SCHISMATICS, — The dissenting sects of the Russo-Greek Church are very-
numerous, but not organized into separate communions like the older Oriental schismatics;
the Russian government forbidding them freedom of public worship. They arc private indi-
viduals or lay-communities, without churches and priests. They have no definite creeds, and
differ from the national religion mostly on minor ceremonies. The most important among
them are the RASKOLNIKI (i. e. Separatists, Apostates), or, as they call themselves, the STAU-
OVBRS (Old Believers). They date from the time of Nicon, Patriarch of Moscow, and
protest against the ritualistic innovations introduced by this remarkable man in the hitter part
of the seventeenth century, and afterwards by the Czar Peter the Groat ; they denounce the
former as the false prophet, and the latter as the antichrist. They reject the benediction
with three fingers instead of two, the pronouncing of the name of Jesus with two syllables
instead of three, processions from right to left instead of the opposite course, the use of modern
Russ in the service-books, the new mode of chanting, the use of Western pictures, the modern
practice of shaving (unknown to the patriarchs, the apostles, and holy fathers), the UHO of to-
bacco (though not of whisky), and, till quite recently, also the eating of the potato (UH the sup-
posed apple of the devil, the forbidden fruit of paradise). They are again divided into sev-
eral parties.
For information about these and other Russian Non-conformists, 8ee STKAHL : History of
Heresies and Schisms in the Greek-Russian Church, and his Contributions to Rmswn Church
History (I. 250 sqq.); HBPWORTH DIXON: Free Russia (1870), and the literature mentioned
in Herzog's Encyklop., Art. Raskolniken, Vol. XII, p. 533.
§ 22. CATHOLICISM AND KOMAJSISML 83
FOURTH CHAPTER.
THE CREEPS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH.
General Literature.
I. Collections of Roman Catholic Creeds :
J. TRO. LBR. DANZ : JAbri Symbolici JSwk&ice Romano-CathoUccet Weimar, 1835.
FB. W. STREITWOLF and R. B. KLKNBB: Libri Symboliel Ecdesice Cvtiholicai, conjuncti, atque notte, prole-
goments indwitot&que iwtrwti, Gotthig. 1838, 2 vols. Contains the Cone. Trid., the Prof. Fidei Trid., and
the Catech. Rom.
HKNK. DMNZINGER (ft. C., d. 1862) : Enchiridion Sywibolorum et Definitfoniwi, quce de rebus fidei et morwm
SL ConGiliis (J^cum&nwis et Sumniis PvnNfietou* eiuanarwnt, edit, quarto, Wirceburgi, 18C5 (pp. 648). A
convenient collection, including the definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary (1854),
and the Papal Syllabus (18C4).
II. Roman Catholic Expositions and Defenses of the Roman Catholic System:
BBLLARMIN'S Diyputationes, BOSSUET'S Exposition, Monuza's Symbolik, PJEBRONE'S JPraalectiones Theo-
logies. See $ 23.
III. Protestant Expositions of the Roman Catholic system (exclusive of polemical works):
Pu. C. MARHKINEKB (Prof, in Berlin, d. 1840) : Christlwke Sijmbolik oder hiatwisch-kritische und dogmor
tiW'h'Comparative Darstellung tfes fcat/ioJ., Zwt/ier., reform, und wcmian. Lehrbegri/e, Heidelb. 1810-13.
The first S vols. (the only ones which appeared) are devoted to Catholicism.
W. H. D. Eo. KOLLNEK (Prof, at Q-ieasen) : Symbol&s der heil. apost. kathol. rwntechen Kirche, Hamb.
1844. (Part II. of his unfinished Synibolik aller chrittlichen Oortfewtonen.)
A. H. BA.IBR (Prof, at Greifswald) : SymboUk der rfrniitch-katholiSGh&n, Kircfa, Leipz. 1864. (The first
volume of an unfinished Symbolik der christlichen Rdigionen und JReligionspartheien.)
§ 22. CATHOLICISM AND ROMANISM.
The Roman Catholic Church embraces over 180 millions of members,
or more than one half of nominal Christendom.1 It is spread all over the
earth, but chiefly among the Latin races in Southern Europe and Amer-
ica.2 It reaches in unbroken succession to the days of St. Peter and
Paul, who suffered martyrdom in Rome. It is more fully developed and
consolidated in doctrine, worship, and polity than any other Church.
Its hierarchy is an absolute spiritual monarchy culminating in the
Bishop of Rome, who pretends to be nothing less than the infallible
Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth. It proudly identifies itself with the
whole Church of Christ, and treats all other Christians as schismatics
and heretics, who are outside of the pale of ordinary salvation.
But this unproved assumption is the fundamental error of the sys-
tem. There is a vast difference between Catholicism and Romanism.
The former embraces all Christians, whether Roman, Greek, or Protest-
1 It is estimated that there are about 370 millions of Christians in the world, which is not
much more than one fourth of the human family (1,370,000,000). Of these 370 millions the
Roman Church may claim about 190, the Greek Church 80, the Protestant Church 100 mill-
ions. But the estimates of the Roman Catholic population vary from 180 to 200 millions.
9 Geographically speaking, the Roman Church may be called the Church of the South, the
Greek Church the Church of the East, the Protestant Church the Church of the West.
84: THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
ant ; the latter is in its very name local, sectarian, and exclusive. The
holy Catholic Church is an article of faith; the Roman Church IK not
even named in the ancient creeds. Catholicism extends through all
Christian centuries; Romanism proper dates from the Council of
Trent Mediaeval Catholicism looked towards the Reformation ; Ro-
manism excludes and condemns the Reformation. So ancient Juda-
ism, as represented by Abraham, Moses, and the Prophets, down to John
the Baptist, prepared the way for Christianity, as its end and fulfil hnont ;
while Judaism, after the crucifixion of the Messiah, and the destruction
of Jerusalem, has become hostile to Christianity. ' Catholicism is the
strength of Romanism ; Romanism is the weakness of Catholicism.'
In Romanism, again, a distinction nrnst be made between the Roman-
ism of the Council of Trent, and the Romanism of the Council of the
Vatican. The 'Old Catholics' of Holland and Germany adhere to
the former, but reject the latter as a new departure. But the papal abso-
lutism has triumphed, and there is no room any longer for a moderate
and liberal Romanism within the reign of the Papacy.
The doctrinal standards of the Roman Catholic Church may accord-
ingly be divided into three classes :
1. The (EouBggaqAL. Creeds, which the Roman Church holds in com-
mon with the Greek, excepting the Filiogue clause, which the (if rook
rejects as an unauthorized, heretical, and mischievous innovation.1
2. The ROMAN or TRIDENTINB Creeds, in opposition to the evangelical
doctrines of the Reformation. Here belong the Council of Trent, the
Profession of Pius IY., and the Roman Catechism. They sanction a
number of doctrines, which were prepared in part by patristic and
scholastic theology, papal decrees, and mediaeval Councils, but had al-
ways been more or less controverted, viz., tradition as a joint rule of
faith, the extent of the canon including the Apocrypha, the authority
of the Vulgate, the doctrine of the primitive state and original sin,
1 The Greek Church is as much opposed to this Latin interpolation as ever. The Encyc-
lical Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs and other prelates, in reply to the Epistle of Pius JX.,
dated Jan. 6, 1848, urges no less than fifteen arguments against the Filioqw, and reminds
Pope Pius of the testimony of his predecessors, Leo III. and John VIII., * those glorious
and last orthodox Popes.' Leo, when appealed to hy the delegates of Charlemagne, in 809,
caused the original Nicene Creed to be engraved on two tablets of silver, on the one in Greek,
on the other in Latin, and these to be suspended in the Basilica of St. Peter, to boar perpetual
witness against the insertion of the Filiogue. This fact, contrasted with the reverse action
of later Popes, is one among the many proofs against papal infallibility.
§ 23. STANDARD EXPOSITIONS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 85
justification by works as well as by faith, meritorious works, seven sacra-
ments, transubstantiation, the withdrawal of the cup, the sacrifice of the
mass for the living and the dead, auricular confession and priestly abso-
lution, extreme unction, purgatory, indulgences, and obedience to the
authority of the Pope as the successor of Peter and vicar of Christ.
3. The modern PAPAL and VATICAN decisions in favor of the im-
maculate conception of Mary, and the infallibility of the Pope. These
were formerly open questions in the Eoman Church, but are now bind-
ing dogmas of faith.
§ 23. STANDARD EXPOSITIONS OF THE EOMAN CATHOLIC SYSTEM.
Italy, France, and Germany have successively furnished the ablest
champions of the doctrinal system of Eomanism in opposition to Prot-
estantism. Their authority is, of course, subordinate to that of the
ofticial standards. But as faithful expounders of these standards they
have great weight. In Romanism, learning is concentrated in a few
towering individuals ; while in Protestantism it is more widely diffused,
and presents greater freedom and variety of opinion.
1. The first commanding work in defense of Eomanism, after many
weak attempts of a purely ephemeral character, was written towards
the close of the sixteenth century, more than fifty years after the begin-
ning of the Protestant controversy, and about thirty years after the Coun-
cil of Trent, by EOBEJBT BELLARMIN (EOBERTO BELLARMINO). He was born
1542, in Tuscany, entered the order of the Jesuits in 1560, became Pro-
fessor of Theology at Louvain in 1570, and afterwards at Eome, was
• made a Cardinal in 1599, Archbishop of Capua in 1602, Librarian of
the Vatican in 1605, and died at Eorne Sept. 17, 1621, nearly eighty
years old. Although the greatest controversialist of his age, he had a
mild disposition, and was accustomed to say that ' an ounce of peace
was worth more than a pound of victory,' His * Disputatiom on the
Controversies of the Christian Faith1 are the most elaborate polemic
theology of the Eoman Church against the doctrines of the Protest-
ant Eeformation.1 They abound in patristic and scholastic learning,
1 The Disputations de controversiis Chrisiiancejidei adversus hujus temporis heretics were
first published at Ingolstadt, 1587-00, 3 vols. folio ; then at Venice (but with many errors) ;
at Cologne, 1620; at Paris, 1688; at Prague, I7ai ; again at Venice, 1721-27; at Mayence,
1842, and at Rome, 1832-40, in 4 vols. 4to. They are usually quoted by the titles of the dif«
36 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
logical acumen and dialectical ability. The differences between Roman-
ism and Protestantism are clearly and accurately stated without any
attempt to weaken them. And yet the book was placed on the Index
Expurgatorius by Sixtus V. for two reasons; first, because Bellannin
introduces the doctrines of the Reformers in their own words, which it
was feared might infect Romish readers with dangerous heresies ; and,
secondly, because lie taught merely an indirect, not a direct, authority
of the Pope in temporal matters. In France and Venice, on the con-
trary, even this doctrine of the indirect temporal supremacy was con-
sidered too ultramontane, and hence Bellannin was never a favorite
among the Galileans. After the death of Sixtus V., the inhibition
was removed. The work has ever shii,e remained the richest store-
house of Roman controversialists, and can not be ignored by Protestants,
although many arguments are now antiquated, and many documents
used as genuine are rejected even by Catholics.
2. Nearly a century elapsed before another champion of Romanism
appeared, less learned, but more eloquent and popular, JAOQUKS BKNIUNK
BOSSTDBT. He was born at Dijon, 1627, was educated by the Jesuits,
tutor of the Dauphin 1670-81, Bishop of Meaux since 1681, Counselor of
State 1697, and died at Paris 1704 The £ Eagle of Meuix' was the great-
est theological genius of France, and the oracle of his ago, a man of
brilliant intellect, untiring industry, magnificent eloquence, and equally
distinguished as controversialist, historian, and pulpit orator* He is
called c the last of the fathers of the Church.' While the hypocritical
and licentious Louis XIV. tried to suppress Protestantism in his king-
dom by cruel persecution, Bossuet betook himself to the nobler and
more successful task of convincing the opponents by argument
This he did in two works, the first apologetic, the second polemical
(a) Exposition de la doctrine de Tl'eglne catholique sur les tnaftfcrw
de controv&rse.1 This book is a luminous, eloquent, idealizing, and
ferent sections, De Verio Dei, De Christo, De Romano Pontifire, De Conrilm tt JSr.clma,
De Cleritis, De Monachis, De Purgatorio, etc. The contemporary Annah of ttnronius
(d. 1607) are the most learned historical vindication of Romanism in opposition to I'rotGHt-
antism and the 'Magdeburg Centuries.'
1 First published in Paris 1671, sixth ed. 1686, and often since in French, German, KugKnh,
and other languages. It was approved and commended by the French clergy, even by Popo
and Cardinals at that time, and attained almost the authority of a symbolical book. But the
Jesuit father Maimbourg disapproved it.
§ 23. STANDARD EXPOSITIONS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 87
plausible defense of the characteristic doctrines of Romanism. It dis-
tinguishes between dogmas and theological opinions; presenting the
former in a light that is least objectionable to reason, and disowning the
latter when especially objectionable to Protestants. ' Bossuet assumes/
says Gibbon, f with consummate art, the tone of candor and simplicity;
and the ten-horned monster is transformed, by his magic touch, into a
milk-white hind, who must be loved as soon as seen.3
(8) Histoire des variations des tylises protestantes.1 This is an at-
tempt to refute Protestantism, by presenting its history as a constant
variation and change; while the Roman Catholic system remained the
same, and thus proves itself to be the truth. The argument is plausible,
but not conclusive. It would prove more for the Greek Church than
for the Latin, which has certainly itself developed from patristic to me-
diaeval, froxn mediaeval to Tridentine, and from Tridentine to Vatican
Romanism. Truth in God, or objectively considered, is unchangeable ;
but truth in man, or the apprehension of it, grows and develops with
man and with history. Change, if it be consistent, is not necessarily a
mark of heresy, but may be a sign of life and growth, as the want of
change, on the other hand, is by no means always an indication of or-
thodoxy, but still more frequently of stagnation.
Bossuet, with all his strong Roman Catholic convictions, was no In-
fallibilist and no ultramontanist, but a champion of the Gallican liber-
ties. He was the presiding genius of the clerical assembly of 1682,
which framed the famous four Gallican propositions ; and he wrote a
book in their defense, which was, however, not published till some time
after his death.2 He carried on a useless correspondence with the great
Leibnitz for a reunion of the Catholic and Protestant churches, and
proposed to this end a suspension of the anathemas of Trent and a gen-
1 Paris, 1 C88, and often since in several languages. Compare also his Defense de fhistoire
des variations centre M. Bamage. Sir James Stephen says of the Variations, that they bring
to the religious controversy * every quality which can render it either formidable or attract-
ive.' The famous historian of the Decline and Fall of Rome was converted by this work to
Romanism, but ended afterwards in infidelity. 4 Bossuet shows,' says Gibbon in his Memoirs,
* by a happy mixture of reasoning and narration, the errors, mistakes, uncertainties, and con-
tradictions of our first Reformers, whose variations, as he learnedly maintains, bear the marks
of error, while the uninterrupted unity of the Catholic Church is a sign and testimony of in-
fallible truth. I read, approved, and believed.'
* Defensio declarations celeberrimce, guam de potestate ecclesiastica sanxit clerus Gatticanut
1682, ex speciali jussu Ludovici M. scripta. Luxemb. 1780, 2 vols. j in French, Paris, 1735,
2 vols.
VOL. L— G
g8 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
eral council in which Protestants should have a deliberative vote. Al-
together, although he sanctioned the infamous revocation of the edict
of Nantes (as c le plus bel usage de Pautorite royale'), and secured the
papal condemnation of the noble Fdnelon (a man more humble and
saint-like than himself), Bossuet can no longer be regarded an sound
and orthodox, if judged by the standard of the Vatican Council.1
3. The same may be said of JOHN ADAM MOIILICR, the greatest Gor-
man divine of the Eoman Church, a man of genius, learning, and ear-
nest piety. He was born 1796, at Igershehn, in the Kingdom of
Wiirtemberg; was Professor of Theology in the University of Tubingen
since 1822, at Munich since 1835, where he died in 1838. The great
work of his life is his Symbolics* It is at once defensive and offen-
sive, a vindication of Bomanism and an attack upon Protestantism, and
written with much freshness and vigor. It made a profound impres-
sion in Germany at a time when Romanism was believed to be intel-
lectually dead or unable to resist the current of Protestant culture.
Mohler was well acquainted with Protestant theology, and was influenced
by the lectures and writings of Schleiermacher and Neander.3 II o di-
vests Romanism of its gross superstitions, and gives it an ideal and
spiritual character. He deals, upon the whole, fairly and respectfully
with his opponents, but makes too much argumentative use of the private
writings and unguarded utterances of Luther. lie ignores the post-
1 Do'llinger (Lectures on the Reunion of ChurcJies, 1872, TQngl. translation, p. 00) says :
* Bossuet puts aside the question of infallibility, as a mere scholastic controverny, having no
relation to faith ; and this was approved at Borne at the time. Now, of course, ho in no
longer regarded in his own country as the classical theologian and most eminent doctor of
modern times ; but as a man who devoted his most learned and comprehensive work, the la-
bor of many years, to the establishment and defense of a fundamental error, and upent many
years of his life in the perversion of facts and distortion of authorities. For that must bo the
present verdict of every infallibilist on Bossuet.'
a 'Symbolik, oder Darstellung der dogmatiscken Gegens&tze der Katholiken und JProtetfanten
nach ihren SffentlichenBekenntniss-Schriften,' It appeared first in 1832, at Mayonco; the sixth
edition in 1843, and was translated into French, English, and Italian. The English transla-
tion is by JAMES BURTON KOBBRTSON, and bears the title, Symbolism / or, Exposition of
the doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants, as evidenced in their symbolical
writings (Lond. 1843, in 2 vols. ; republished in 1 vol., New York, 1844). It is preceded by a
memoir of Mohler, and a superficial historical sketch of recent German Church history.
3 Neander told me that Mohler, when a student at Berlin, occasionally called on him, and
seemed to him very modest, earnest, and inquiring after the truth, Hase calls him a ' deli-
cate and noble mind,' and relates that when he began his academic career in Tubingen with
him, Mohler was filled with youthful ideals, and regarded by CathoUcs as heterodox. (Hand-
buch der Prot, Polemic, Pref. p. ix.)
§ 23. STANDARD EXPOSITIONS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 89
Tridentine deliverances of Rome, says wot a word about papal infalli-
bility, and, although not a Gallican, he represents the antagonism of the
episcopal and papal systems as a wholesome check upon extremes. He
recognizes the deep moral earnestness from which the Reformation pro-
ceeded, deplores the corruptions in the Church, sends many ungodly
popes and priests to hell, and talks of a feast of reconciliation, pre-
ceded by a common humiliation and confession that all have sinned
and gone astray, the Church alone [meaning the institution] is without
spot or wrinkle.1 His work called forth some very able Protestant re-
plies, especially from Baur and Nitzsch.2
4. GIOVANNI PEKRONE, born in Piedmont, 1794, Professor of Theol-
ogy in the Jesuit College at Rome, wrote a system of dogmatics which is
now most widely used in the Roman Church, and which most fully
comes up to its present standard of orthodoxy.3 Perrone defends the
immaculate conception of Mary, and the infallibility of the Pope, and
helped to mould the decrees of the Vatican Council. His method is
scholastic and traditional, but divested of the wearisome and repulsive
features of old scholasticism, and adapted to the modern state of con-
troversy.
1 SymboKk (Gth edition, p. 353) : * Unstreitig liessen es ouch oft genug Priester, Bischdfe
und Pfipste, gewissenlos und unverantwortlich, selbst dortfehlen, wo es nur von ihnen abhing,
ein srMneres Leben su begrunden ; oder sie Ib'schten gar noch durch argerliches Leben und Stre-
ben den glimmen den Docht aus, welchen sie anfachen sollten : die Hb'lle hat sie verschlungen. . . .
Bcide \Katholiken und Protestanten~\ mussen schuMbewusst ausrufen: Wir Alle haben ge-
fehlt, nur die Kirche ist's, die nichtfehlen kann; wir Alle haben gesiindigt, nur sie ist un-
beflerkt aufErden.1 Incidentally Mohler denies the papal infallibility, when he says (p. 336) :
*• Keinem einzelnen ah solchen kommt diese Unverirrlichkeit zu.'
2 Baur's Gegematz des Katholicismus und Protestantismus (Tubingen, 1833, 2d ed. 1 836),
in learning, grasp, and polemical dexterity, is fully equal or superior to Mohler's Symbolik, but
not orthodox, and elicited a lengthy and rather passionate defense from his Catholic colleague
(Neue Untersuchungen, Mainz, 1 834). Nitzsch'sProtestawftVAe Beantwortung der Mohlerschen
Symbolik (Hamb. 1835) is sound, evangelical, calm, and dignified. It is respectfully men-
tioned, but not answered, by Mohler. Marheineke and Sartorius wrote, likewise, able replies.
A counterpart of Mohler's Symbolik is Ease's Handbuch der Protestantischen Polemik gegen die
Rdmisch-Katholische Kirche, Leipz. 1862 ; 3d ed. 1 871 . Against this work Dr. F. Speil wrote
Die Lehren der KathoU$c.hen Kirche, gegenuber der Protestantischen Polemik^ Freiburg, 1865,
which, compared with Mohler's book, iks a feeble defense.
8 Preelections theologicce quas in Collegio Romano Societatis Jesu habebat J. P. They ap-
peared first at Home, 1835 sqq., in 9 vols. 8vo ; also at Turin (31st ed. 1865 sqq. in 0 vols.) ;
at Paris (1870, in 4 vols.); at Brussels, and Ratisbon. His compend, Prcelectiones theolo-
yicce in Compendium redactce, has been translated into several languages. Perrone wrote also
separate works, Da Jesu Christi Divinitate (Turin, 1870, 3 vols.); De virtutibus fidei, spei et
caritatis (Tur. 1867, 2 vols.); De Matrimonio Christiano (Lond. 1861), and on the Immaculate
Conception of Mary.
90 THE CRREDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
NOTE. — ENGLISH WORKS ON ROMANISM. — England and the United States Iwvo not pro-
duced a classical theological work on Romanism, such as those above mentioned, but a number
of compilations and popular defenses. We mention the following : Th<>, Faith of Cat holies
on certain points of Controversy, co?ijinned hy Scripture, and attested by the Fathers of the
Church during the Jive Jirst centuries of the Chure.J^ compiled hi/ Rev. Jos. BKUINOTOM nntl
Rev. JOHN KIRK, Lond. 1812, 1 vol. ; 2d ed. 18UO; IJd ed., revised and greatly enlarged, by
Rev. JAMES WATBUWORTH, 1840, in 8 vols. The End of JMit/ioitu Controwrstj (Lond. 1818,
and often since), a series of letters by the Rt. Rev. JOHN MILNKK (born in London, 1 752, d. 1 Hii(>).
Lectures on the Principal Doctrines and Practices of the Catholic C'/iwr/i, delivered in Lon-
don, 1836, by Cardinal NICHOLAS WISEMAN (born in Spain, 1802, died in London, 18(>r>).
At present the ablest champions of Romanism in England are ex-Anglicans, especially
Dr. JOHN H. NEWMAN (born in London, 1801) and Archbishop URNKY KDWAUD MANNING
(born in London, 1 809, Wiseman's successor), who use the weapons of Protestant culture
against the Church of their fathers and the faith of their early manhood. Manning is an en-
thusiastic infallibilist, but Newman acquiesced only reluctantly in the latest dogmatic develop-
ment.1
The principal apologists of the Romish Church in America are Archbishops KKNKIOK and
SPAULDING, Bishop ENGLAND, Dr. ORKSTKS BUOWNSON (in his Renew), and more recently
the editors, chiefly ex-Protestants, of the monthly * Catholic World." We mention KUANCIH
PATRICK KISNIUCK (Archbishop of Baltimore, born in Dublin, 1 707, died IBM) : The Primacy
of the Apostolic See Vindicated, 4th ed. Bait. 1855, and A Vindication of the Catholic Church^
in a Series of Letters to the fit. Rev. J. //. Hopkins, Bait. 1855. His brother, PKTKU Kitw-
AKD KBNRIOK, Archbishop of St. Louis, was an opponent of the infallibility dogma in the
Vatican Council, but has since submitted, like the rest of the bishops. In a lengthy and re-
markable speech, which he had prepared for the Vatican Council, but was prevented from
delivering by the sudden close of the discussion, June 8, 1870, he shows that the doctrine of
papal infallibility was not believed either in Ireland, his former home, or in America; on tho
contrary, that it was formally and solemnly disowned by British bishops prior to the Catholic
Emancipation bill.2
§ 24. THE CANONS AND DECREES OF Tins COUNCIL OF TRENT*
Literature,
I. Latiu Editions.
PAUL. MAVTTTITO (d. 1574) : Canones et Decreta (Ecum. et Oeneralis Cone, Tridentini, jumt PontifaiA Ro-
mani, Borne, 1564, fol., 4to, and Svo.
Canones et Decreta (Ecum. et Oeneralis Cone. Trident . . , Index dogm. et rtforniatianmi, etc., Loviui.
1667, fol.
Canones et Decreta CKcum. et Oeneralis Cone. Trident, additis declarationibus cardinal. Kx ultfona wan-
nitione J. GALLEMART et citationiliis J. SOTKAT.TJ, et HOB. LUTII, nee nan rcmdMionib, AOHT. BAUHOH.K
(Cologne, 1620 ; Lyons, 1650, Svo), qufbu* accedunt additions BLO. ANDRJUK, etc., Cologne (1664), 171^, Hvo.
Pn. CHIFFLKT: S. ConsiUi Trid. Canones et Decreta cum pratfatione, Antw. 1040, Svo.
JUDOV. LB PLAT (or LBPLAT; a very learned and moderate Catholic, d. 1810) : Concilii Wridtntini On/tone*
et Decreta, juxta exemplar authenticum, ,/tom<£l564 editum, cum variantibus lectionilus, notia Chi/lctii, etc.,
Antwerp, 1779 ; Madrid, 1786, The most complete Oath, edition.
MX. LUB. RIOIITBII et FRID. SOHUT.TR: Canones et Decreta Concilii Fridentim ex editwne Romana a,
1834, rtpettot, etc., Leipz. 1853. Best Protestatit ed.
Canones et Decreta sacrosanct* OBcwmenici Concilii FHdentini, etc., Romsa, ed. stereotypa VII., X-olpfc
(TanchDitz), 1864.
W. SMETS: Concilii Tridentini sacrosanct* tiecumenici et general^, Paulo 127., Julio IT/., Pio IV., Pon*
1 The views of the older English Romanists are compiled and classified by SAMUKU OAI»-
PBE (a Quaker), in the work, The Acknowledged Doctrines of the Church of Rome . . . mt set
forth by esteemed doctors of the said Church, Lond. 1 850 (pp. 008). Jt consists mostly of
extracts from the comments in the Douay version of the Scriptures. Comp. an article in the
(N. Y. ) Catholic World for Dec. 1 873, on * Catholic Literature in England since tbe Reformation.*
a See Kenrick's Concio habenda, at non 'habita in Friedrich's Docwnenta^ I
§ 24. THE CANONS AND DECREES OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. 91
tificibus Maximis, cekbrati, Canones et Decreta. Latin and German, with a German introduction, 5th ed.
Bielefeld, 1859.
The doctrinal decrees and canons are also given in Denzinger's Enchiridion.
II. English Translations.
J. WATEKWOJRTII (R. 0.) : TJie Canons and Decrees of the Soured and (Ecumenical Council of Trent (with
Eitsaya on the External and Internal History of the Council), London, 1848. (From Le Plat's edition.)
Tu. A. BUOKLKY (Chaplain of Christ Church, Oxford) : The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent,
London, 1851.
There are also translations in French, German, Greek, Arabic, etc.
III. History of the Council.
HABDOITIN: Acta Conciliorum (Paris, 1714), Tom. X. 1-435,
JUDOV. Lw PLA.T : Monumentorum ad historiam Comilii Trid. potissiwumn illustrandum spectantium
amplissima collectio, Lovan. 1781-87, Tom. VII. 4to. The most complete documentary collection.
Fra PAOLO SABPI (liberal Catholic, d. 1623) : Istoria del concilio Tridentirw, nella quale 8i scoprono
tutti gVartifaii della corte di Roma, per impcdire, che m la verita di dogmi si palesasse, ne la riforma del
papato e della chiesa si trattasse, Lond. 1619, fol. ; Geneva, 1629, 1660. Latin transl., Lond. 1020; Frankf.
1621 ; Amst. 1694 ; Leipz. 1699. French translation by Peter Francis Courayer, with valuable historical
notes, Lond. 1736, 2 vols. fol. ; Amst. 1736, 2 vols. 4to ; Amst. 1751, 3 vols. (Courayer was a liberal Roman.
Catholic divine, but, being persecuted, he fled from France to England, and joined the Anglican Church ;
d. 1776.) English translation by Sir Nathaniel Brent, Lond. 1676, fol. German translations by Rambach
(with Courayer's notes), Halle, 1701, and by Winterer, Mergeiitheim and Leipz. iid ed. 1844.
Card. SFOBZA PALLAVIOINI (strict Catholic, d. 1667) : Istoria del concilio di Trento, Roma, 1656-57, 2
vols. fol., and other editions, original and translated. Written ?n opposition to Paul Sarpi. Comp.
BBISOHAB: Beurtheilung der Controvers&n Sarpi'n und Pallavte.'s, Tubing. 1843, 2 vols.
L. BL. Du PIN (R. C.) : Hitttoire du concile de Tr&nte, Brussels, 1721, 2 voh. 4to.
CUB. Aua. SALIG (Luth.) : VolMndige Historie des Tridant. Conciliums, Halle, 1741-45, 3 vols. 4to.
Jos, MKNWIA.M: Memoirs of the Councilof Trent, principally derived from manuscript and unpublished
Records, etc., Lond. 1834 ; with a Supplement, 1846.
J. Gosonn: Oeschichte des Cone. z. Tr., Regensburg, 1840, 2 vols.
J. H. VON WKSBBNBERG (a liberal R, C. and Bishop of Constance, d. 1860) : Qeschichte der grossenSirchenr
versammlunyan des 16 und 16 ten Jahrh., Conntanco, 1840, Vol. III. and IV.
Card. GA.BB. PALBOTTO : Acta Condlii Trid. ab a 1562 daw., ed. Mendham, Lond. 1842.
ED. KOLLNKB: ty/mbolik der ritm. Kirche, Hamb. 1844, pp. 7-140.
J. T, L. DANZ : Gettch. des Trid. Cone., Jena, 1846.
TH. A. BTJOKLWY : //fwEot*// of the Council of Trent, London, 1852.
FBMX BUNOMNKB: Histoire du Concile de Trente, Paris, 2d edition, 1854. English translation, Edin-
burgh, 1852, and New York, 1855. Also in German, Stuttg. 1861, 2 vols.
A. B ASCII KT ; Journal du Concile de Trente, redige par un secretaire venitien present aux sessions de 1562
d 1563, avec d'autres documents diplomatiques relatifs d la mission dex Ambassadeurs de France, Par. 1870.
TH. SIOKKL: Zur Qesohichte des Concils von Trient. Actemti'icke aus dsterreichischen Archiven,Wieu,
1872 (650 pp.). Mostly letters to the German Emperor, in Latin and Italian, from 1559 to 1563.
AUGUSTIN TUEINRE (Priest of the Oratory, d.1874) : Acta genuina SS. QScumenici Condlii Tridentini . . .
nunc primum Integra edita. Zagrabiae (Croatise) et Lipsise, 1874, 2 Tom. 4to (pp. 722 and 701).
Jos. VON DOLLINGBB: Ungedrucfcte Berichte und Tagebucher zur Oeschichte des Cone, von Trwnt, Nord-
liugen, 1876.
The principal source and the highest standard of the doctrine and dis-
cipline of the Roman Church are the CANONS AND DECREES OF THE COUNCIL
OF TRENT, first published in 1564, at Rome, by authority of Pius IV.1
The Council of Trent (1543-63) is reckoned by the Roman Church
as the eighteenth (or twentieth) oecumenical Council.2 It is also the
1 The editor of this rare authentic edition was the learned PAUL as MANUTIUS (Paolo Manu-
zio), Professor of Eloquence and Director of the Prin ting-Press of the Venetian Academy, settled
at Home 1 56 1 , and died there 1 574. Not to be confounded with his father, Aldo Manuzio, sen.
(1447-151 5), the editor of the celebrated editions of the classics ; nor with his son, Aldo Manu-
zio, the younger (1547-1597), likewise a printer and writer, and Professor of Eloquence.
a There is a dispute about the reformatory Councils of Pisa (1409), Constance (1414-18), and
Basle (143 1), which are acknowledged by the Gallicans, but rejected by the Ultramontnnists, or
accepted only in part, i. e. , as far as they condemned and punished heretics (Hus and Jerome
92 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
last, with the exception of the Vatican Council of 1S70, which, having
proclaimed the Pope infallible, supersedes the necessity and us<* of any
future councils, except for unmeaning formalities. It was called forth
by the Protestant Reformation, and convened for the double purpose
of settling the doctrinal controversies, which then agitated and divided
Western Christendom, and of reforming discipline, which the more se-
rious Catholics themselves, including even an exceptional Tope (Adrian
VI.), desired and declared to be a crying necessity.1 The Popes, jeal-
ous of deliberative assemblies, which might endanger their absolute
authority, and afraid of reform movements, which might make conces-
sions to heretics, pursued a policy of evasion and intrigue, and post-
poned the council again and again, until they were forced to yield to
the pressure of public opinion. Pius IV. told the Venetian emhassador
that his predecessors had professed a wish for a council, but had not
really desired it.
In the early stages of the Reformation, Luther himself appealed to a
general council, but he came to the conviction that even general coun-
cils had erred (e.g., the Council of Constance in condemning II us), BO
that he had to trust exclusively to the Word of God and the Spirit of
God in history. In deference to the special wish of the Kmperor
Charles V., the evangelical princes and divines wore invited; but being
refused a deliberative voice, they declined. ' They could not fail,' they
replied, ' to appreciate the efforts of the Emperor, and they themselves
were longing for an impartial council to be controlled by the supremo
authority of the Scriptures, but they could not acknowledge nor attend
a Roman council where their cause was to be jxidged after papal de-
crees and scholastic opinions, which had always found opposition in the
of Prague). The Council of Ferrara and Florence (1 430) is regarded as a continuation of. or a
substitute for, the Council of Basle. There is also a dispute among Roman hiHtoriaiiH about the
oecumenical character of the Council of Sardica (343), the Quinisexta ((WU), the Council of
Vienne (1 31 1), and the fifth Lateran (1512-1 7). See Hefele, Conritienyesc/richte, Vol. 1. 50 »qq.
1 Adrian VI. , from Holland, the teacher of Charles V., and the last non-Italian Pope, HUC-
ceeded Leo X. in 1522, but ruled only one year. * He died of the papacy.' lie wtw a man of
ascetic piety, and openly confessed, through his legato Chieregati, at the Diet of Nurnborg,
that the Church was corrupt and diseased, from the Pope and the papal court to the mornberH;
but at the same time he demanded the sharpest measures against Luther as a second Moham-
med. Twelve years later, Paul III. (1534-49) appointed a reform commission of nine pious
Roman prelates, who in a memorial declared that the Pope's absolute dominion over the
whole Church was the source of all this corruption ; but he found it safer to introduce the In-
quisition instead of a reformation.
§ 24. THE CANONS AJSTD DECREES OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. 93
Church. The council promised by the Pope would be neither free nor
Christian, nor oecumenical, nor ruled by the Word of God ; it would
only confirm the authority of the Pope, on whom it was depending, and
prove a new compulsion of conscience.' The result shows that these
apprehensions were well founded.1
After long delays the Council was opened by order of Pope Paul III.,
in the Austrian City of Trent (since 1917, belonging to Italy), on the 13th
December, 1545, and lasted, with long interruptions, till the 4th of De-
cember, 1563. The attendance varied in the three periods : under Paul
III. the number of prelates never exceeded 57, under Julius III. it
rose to 62, under Pius IV. it was much larger, but never reached the
number of the first oecumenical Council (318). The decrees were
signed by 255 members, viz., 4 legates of the Pope, 2 Cardinals, 3
Patriarchs, 25 Archbishops, 168 Bishops, 39 representatives of absent
prelates, 7 Abbots, and 7 Generals of different orders. Two thirds of
them were Italians. From France and Poland only a few dignitaries
were present ; the greater part of the German Bishops were prevented
from attendance by the war between the Emperor and the Prot-
estants in Germany. The theologians who assisted the members of
the Synod belonged to the monastic orders most devoted to the Holy
See.
The pontifical party controlled the preliminary deliberations as well
as the final decisions, in spite of those who maintained the rights of an
independent episcopacy.2
During a period of nearly twenty years twenty-five public sessions
were hold, of which about one half were spent in mere formalities.
But the principal work was done in the committees or congregations.
The articles of dispute were always fixed by the papal legates, who pre-
1 At the second period of the Council, 1552, a number of Protestant divines from Wiirttem-
berg, Strasburg, and Saxony, arrived in Trent, or were on the way, but they demanded a re-
vision of the previous decrees and free deliberation, which were refused.
a The overruling influence of the papal court over the Council rests not only on the author-
ity of Paolo Sarpi, but on many contemporary testimonies, e. g., the reports of Franciscus de
Vargas, a zealous Catholic, who was used by Charles V. and Philip II. for the most important
missions, who watched the proceedings of the Council at Trent from 1 551 to V>2. and gave minute
information to Granvella. See Leltres e.t Mtfmoirps de FR. I>K VARGAS, de Pierre de Mahwida
et d(>$ qutfques weqnes d'Exparfne, trad, par Michel le Vassor, Amst. 1000 : also in Latin, by
Schramm, Brunswick, 1 70 k Le Plat pronounced this correspondence fictitious, but its authen-
ticity has been sufficiently established (see Kollner, 1. c. pp. 40, 41).
94 TIIK OKEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
sided. They were then first discussed, often with considerable differ-
ence of opinion, in the private sessions of the 'Congregations,' and after
being secretly reported to, and approved by, the court of Rome, the
Synod, in public session, solemnly proclaimed the decisions. They arc
generally framed with consummate scholastic skill and prudence.
The decisions of the Council relate partly to doctrine, partly to disci-
pline. The former are divided again into Decrees (</<v,wfa), which
contain the positive statement of the Roman dogma, and into short
Canons (canonea), which condemn the dissenting views with the con-
cluding 'anathema sit' The Protestant doctrines, however, are almost
always stated in an exaggerated form, in which they would hardly bo
recognized by a discriminating evangelical divine, or they are mixed
up with, real heresies, which Protestants condemn as emphatically as
the Church of Home.1
The doctrinal sessions, which alone concern us here, are the following :
SESSIO III. Decretum de Symbolo Fidei (accepting the Niceno Constantiuopolitan Creed
as a basis of the following decrees (Febr. 4, 1546).
" IV. Decretum de Canonicis Scripturis (Apr. 8, 1/346).
" V. De Peccato Original! (June 17, 154G).
" VI. De Justificatione (Jan. 18, 1547).
c< VII. De Sacramentis in genere, and some Can ones deBaptismo et Oonftrmatione
(March 3, 1547).
XIII. De Eucharistwe Sacramento (Oct. 11, 1551).
XIV. De S. Poenitentiae et Kxtremaj Unctionis Sacramento (Nov. 25, 1551).
XXI. De Communione sub utraque Specie et Parvulorum (July 1C, 1562).
XXII. Doctrina de Sacrificio Missso (Sept. 17, 15G2).
XXIII. Vera et Catholica de Sacramento Ordinis doctrina (July 15, 15C8).
XXIV. Doctrina de Sacramento Matrimonii (Nov. 11, 1503).
n XXV. Decretum de Purgatorio, Doctrina de Invocatione, Veneratione et Keliquiis
Sanctorum, et sacris Imaginibus. Decreta de Inclulgeuti'iB, do Doloctu Ci-
borum, Jejuniis et Diebus Festis, de Indice Librorum, Oatedusmo, Brevi*
ario et Missali (Dec. 3 and 4, 1563).
The last act of the Council was a double curse upon all heretics.8
The decrees, signed by 255 fathers, were solemnly confirmed by a
bull of Pins IV. (Benediotus Deus et Pater Domini nostri, etc.) on the
26th January, 1564, with, the reservation of the exclusive right of ex-
planation to the Pope.
1 Thus the Canones de Justificatione (Sess. VI.) reject Pelagianism and Femi-Pelagianisra,
as well as Solifidianism and Antinomianism.
a The Cardinal of Lorraine said, 'Anathema cunctis h&reticis.' To this the fathers re-
sponded, 'Anathema, Anathema.1
§ 24. THE CANONS AND DECREES OF THE COUNCIL OF T&ENT. 95
The Council was acknowledged in Italy, Portugal, Spain, France, tlie
Low Countries, Poland, and the Roman Catholic portion of the German
Empire ; but mostly with a reservation of the royal prerogatives. In
France it was never published in form. No attempt was made to in-
troduce it into England. Pius IV. sent the acts to Queen Mary of Scots,
with a letter, dated June 13, 1564, requesting her to publish them in Scot-
land, but without effect.1
The Council of Trent, far from being truly oecumenical, as it claimed
to be, is simply a Roman Synod, where neither the Protestant nor the
Greek Church was represented ; the Greeks were never invited, and
the Protestants were condemned without a hearing. But in the history
of the Latin Church, it is by far the most important clerical assembly,
unless the unfinished Vatican Council should dispute with it that
honor, as it far exceeded it in numbers. It completed, with the excep-
tion of a few controverted articles, the doctrinal system of mediaeval
Catholicism, and stamped upon it the character of exclusive Romanism.
It settled its relation to Protestantism by thrusting it out of its bosom
with the terrible solemnities of an anathema. Papal diplomacy and
intrigue outmanaged all the more liberal elements. At the same time
the Council abolished various crying abuses, and introduced wholesome
disciplinary reforms, as regards the sale of indulgences, the education
and morals of the clergy, the monastic orders, etc. Thus the Protest-
ant Reformation, after all, had indirectly a wholesome effect upon the
Church which condemned it.
The original acts of the Council, as prepared by its general secre-
tary, Bishop Angelo Massarelli, in six large folio volumes, are depos-
ited in the Vatican, and have remained there unpublished for more
than three hundred years. But most of the official documents and
private reports bearing upon the Council were made known in the six-
teenth century, and since. The most complete collection of them is that
of Le Plat New materials were brought to light by Mendham (from the
manuscript history of Cardinal Paleotto), by Sickel, and by Dollinger.
The genuine acts, but only in part, were edited by Theiner (1874).
The history of the Council was written chiefly by two able and
1 On the reception, see the seventh volume of LE PLAT'S Collection of Documents, COUKAT-
BR'S Histoire de la reception du Condi de Trente, dans les dijfferens ttats catholiques, Amst,
1756 (Paris, 1766), and K()LLNEK, 1. c. pp. 121-129.
96 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
learned Catholics of very different spirit: the liberal, almost semi- Prot-
estant monk Fra PAOLO SAKPI, of Venice (first, 1C 19) ; and, in the inter-
est of the papacy, by Cardinal SFOBZA PALLAVIOINI (165(>), who had
access to all the archives of Koine. Both accounts must bo compared.
The first learned and comprehensive criticism of the Tridcntine doc-
trine, from a Protestant point of view, was prepared by an eminent
Lutheran theologian, MABTIJN CHEMNITZ (d. 1580), in his Emmcn Con-
cilii Tridentini (1565-73,4 Parts), best ed.,Frankf.,1707; republiahcd,
Berlin, 1861.1
§ 25. THE PROFESSION OF THE TBIDKNTINK FAITH, 1564.
G. 0. F. MOHNIKE : Urkundliclie Geschichte der aogenannten Profeww Wdei Tridentince, und einiger andtrn
rom. katholischen Glaubensbekenntntese, Greifsvvald, 1822 (310 pp.).
STBErewoLff et KLICWB» : Libri Symbolic*, Ecclesice Catholfcce, <K>tt. 1888, Tom. I. pp, xlv.-li. imd 98-100,
KOLLNKB : Symbolik der rdm. KircJie, pp. 141-165.
The older literature see in WALOH: Biblwtheca tJieol. seZM I. p. 410 ; and in KOLLNBB, 1. c. p. 141.
Next in authority to the decrees of the Council of Trent, or virtually
superior to it, stands the PROFESSIO FIDEI TBIDENTIN^E, or the CRKED OF
Pius IV.2
It was suggested by the Synod of Trent, which in its last two sessions
declared the necessity of a binding formula of faith (formula 2>rofc$<*
sionis et jwamenti) for all dignitaries and teachers of the Catholic
Church.3 It was prepared by order of Pope Pius IV., in 1564, by a
college of Cardinals.
It consists of twelve articles : the first contains the Nicene Creed in
full, the remaining eleven are a clear and precise summary of the epo-
1 The editor, Ed. Preuss, has since become a Komaniwt at St, Lotus (1H71).
2 The original name was Forma jurnmenti professions JideL In the two papal bulls which
published and enjoined the creed, it is called Fortna professionisjidd catholirw, or orthothww
jfidei. The usual mime is Professiofidei Tridentince (or P. /. Tridentina, which is properly n
misnomer). See Mohnike, 1. c. p. 8, and Kollner, 1. c. p. 150.
3 Sess. XXV. cap. 2 De Reformatione (p. 430, ed. Richter) : * Coffit tcmporum rahtntittta ct
mvalescentinm haresum malitia, ut nihil sit prcpturmittendwrt, quod ad poputorum wKjicatiimvm
et caiholira* ftdei presidium videatur posse pertinere. Prcecipit igitur sanvta synodw patri-
archis, primatibus^ archiepisropis, ?piscopis\ ft omnibus aliis, gui dejure vd conswstouKn* in cau-
cilio provinciali inter esse debent, ut in ipsaprima synodo provincial^ post Jinemprw$ent'i& conritii
habenda, ea omnia et singula^ qua ab haci sanc.ta synodo definite* et statuta aunt^ pahtm rwipi-
ant, nee non veram obedientiam sumwo Romano Pontijiri spondeant et projitmntur, slmu/qm
h&reses omnes, a sacris canonibus et generalibits conriKis,pr<Psertimqit6ab hac, eaditw #ynodo dam-
natas, publice detestentur et anathematizent.1 Comp. Sess. XXIV. De Rfformatione^ cap, 12,
(vhere an examination and profession (orthodoxa Jidei pubKca professio) is required from the
clergy, together with a vow to remain obedient to the Roman Church (in ecdesiw Romanat
obedientia se permansuros spondeant acjurent).
§ 25. THE PROFESSION OF THE TRIDENTINE FAITH. 97
cific Roman doctrines as settled by the Coiineil of Trent, together with
the important additional declaration that the Koman Church is the
mother and teacher of all the rest, and with an oath of obedience to
the Pope, as the successor of the Prince of the apostles, and the vicar
of Christ.1 The whole is put in the form of an individual profession
(' Jfyo, - , firma, fide credo et prqfiteor'), and of a solemn vow and
oath (c spondee, voveo ac juro. Sic me Deus adjuvet, et hcec sancta
This formula was made binding, in a double bull of Nov. 13, 1564
(c fnjunetwn nolis1), and Dec. 9, 1564 ('In saorosancta beati Petri,
principis apostolorum, cathedra] etc.), upon the whole ecdesia docensy
i. e., upon all Roman Catholic priests and public teachers in Catholic sem-
inaries, colleges, and universities. Besides, it has come to be generally
used, without special legislation, as a creed for Protestant converts
to Romanism, and hence it is called sometimes the c Profession of Con-
verts,'2 For both purposes it is far better adapted than the Decrees
1 lSanc.f(i7n mtholicam et apostolicam Romanam ecclesiam omnium tcclesiarum matrem et ma-
gistram aynosvo, Romanoque Pontijlci^ beati Petri Apostolorum prinwipis successori ac Jesu
Chrittti riowio, wram obedientiam spondeo ac.juro.1 Here the 'catholic1 Church is identified
with the * Roman' Church, and true obedience to the Pope is made a test of catholicity. The
union decree of the Council of Florence makes a similar assertion (see Hardonin, Acta Cone.
ix. 4t£tt)t ''Item defmwius, sanctam apostolicam sedem ft Romanum Pontificcm in universum
orbem temrc primatum, et ipsum Pontifirem Romanum successorem esse beati Petri prindpis
Apostolorwi) ct verum Qhrittti mcarium, totiusgue ewlesm caput et omnium Ghristianorum pa-
ir CM et doctorem Gjcistere.' But the integrity of the text of this famous union formula is dis-
puted, and the Greeks and Latins charge each other with corruption. Some Greek copies
omit the proud words rbv 'JPw/jm/cov Apxiep'ta dg Tratrav rfiv oiKOVftevnv TO irpwrtiov Kark^v.
C^omp, TXIKOD. FHOMMANN : Zur Kritik des Florentines Unionsdec.rets und seiner dogma-
tlwhen Vtrwerthung leim 7atir.ctnisc.hen Conril, Leipss. 1870, pp.40 sqq.
8 Kor converts from the Greek Church the form was afterwards (157/5) modified by a ref-
erence to the compromise of the Council of Florence. See the Professio Fidei Gratis prce-
scripta a Gregorio X1IT,, in Denssinger's EncMr., p. 204, and the Professio Fidd Orientali-
bus prwsmptu ab Urbano VUJ. et Benedicto XIV., ibid. , p, 296. For Protestants other forms
of abjuration were occasionally used, without official sanction. The infamous Hungarian
formula for Protestant converts (Confessio novorwn Cntholicorum in Hungaria, first published
1C 74) is disowned by liberal Catholics as a foul Protestant forgery, but seems to have been
used occasionally by Jesuits during the cruel persecutions of Protestants in Hungary and Bo-
hemia in the 17th century. It contains the most extravagant Jesuit views on the authority
of the Pope, the worship of the Virgin, the power of the priesthood, and pronounces awful
curses on Protestant parents, teachers, and relations (f makdictos pronunfiamus parentes nos-
tro&,* etc.)» and on the evangelical faith, with the promise to persecute this faith in every pos-
sible way, oven by the sword (' Juramus etiam, donee una gutta sanguinis in corpore nostro
exstiterit, doctrinam maledictam illam evangelicam nos omnimodo, clam et aperte, violenter et
frauduUnter, verbo et facto persecuturos, ense quoque non excluso'}. See the formula in Moh-
nike, I c. pp. 88-92, in Streitwolf and Klener, II. pp. 343-846 ; and an account of the contro-
98 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
of the Council of Trent, which are too learned and extensive for pop
ular use.
As this Profession of Pius IV. is the most concise and, practically, tho
most important summary of the doctrinal system of Rome, we give it
in full, and arrange it in three parts, so that the difference between the
ancient Catholic faith, the later Tridentine faith, and the oath of obedi-
ence to the Pope as the vicar of Christ, may be more clearly neon. It
should he remembered that the Nicene Creed was regarded by tho
ancient Church as final, and that the third and fonrth a»<unmmicul
Councils solemnly, and on the pain of deposition and excommunication,
forbade the setting forth of any new creed.1 To bring the Trident ino
formula up to the present standard of Roman orthodoxy, it would
require the two additional dogmas of the immaculate conception, and
papal infallibility.
TRANSLATION OF THE PROFESSION.9
I. THE NIOBNK CREED OF 381, with the Western Changes.
(See p. 27.)
1. I9 ? with a firm faith, believe and profess all and every one of the things contained
in the symbol of faith, which the holy Roman Church makes use of, viss. :
I believe in ONE GOD THE FATHER Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of till tilings
visible and invisible.
And in one Lord JESUS CHKIST, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of tho Frtthw
before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father ; by whom all things weio made ;
Who, for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and wan incarnate by
the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man ;
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate ; Buffered and was buried ;
And the third day he rose again, according to the SScriptureH ;
And ascended into heaven ; sitteth on the right hand of the Father ;
And he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead j whone kingdom
•hall have no end.
And in the HOLY GHOST, the Lord, and Giver of life ; who proccecleth from tho Father
and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who
spake by the Prophets.
And one holy catholic and apostolic Church ;
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins j
And I look for the resurrection of the dead ;
And the life of the world to come. Amen.
versies concerning it in Kollner, 1. c. pp. 159- 1C5, and especially the monograph of Mohmke:
Zur Geschichte des Ungarischen Ffachformuhrs (an Appendix to his History of the Profes-
sion of the Tridentine Faith), Greifswald, 1823, 2(H pages, A copy of this rare book in in
the library of the Union Theological Seminary of New York.
1 Cone. Ephes. (431), Canon VII. • Cone. Chalced. (451), after the definition of frith,
9 See the .Latin text in the two bulls of Pius IV. above mentioned, also in Molmike, 1. e.
pp. 46 sqq., in Streitwolf and Klener, Libri Symb. I. 98-100 (with the various reading*), and
ia Denzinger, Enchir., p. 98. Also Mirbt, pp. 337-40. For additions to the oath Vol
TT., 210.
§ 25. THE PROFESSION OF THE TR1DENTINE FAITH. 99
II. Summary of the TUIDENTINE CREED (1563).
2. I most steadfastly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions, and all
other observances and constitutions of the same Church.
3. I also admit the holy Scriptures according to that sense which our holy Mother Church
has held, and docs hold, to which it belongs to judge of the true sense and "interpretation of
the Scriptures; neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the
unanimous consent of the Fathers (jujcta nnaniwem consensum Pat mm). l
4. I also profess that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the new law, insti-
tuted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, though not all
for every one, to wit : baptism, confirmation, the eucharist, penance and extreme unction, holy
orders, and matrimony ; and that they confer grace ; and that of these, baptism, confirma-
tion, and ordination can not be reiterated without sacrilege. I also receive and admit the re-
ceived and approved ceremonies of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of
the aforesaid sacraments.
5. I embrace and receive all and every one of the things which have been defined and de-
clared in the holy Council of Trent concerning original sin and justification.
(>. I profess likewise that in the mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitia-
tory sacrifice for the living and the dead (verwn, proprium, et propitiatoriwn sacrificium pro
vivis et dvfunc.tis) ; and that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist there is truly, really,
and substantially (?>w», realiter, et substantialiter) the body and blood, together with the soul
and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ ; and that there is made a change of the whole essence
(conversionmn totius substantial) of the bread into the body, and of the whole essence of the
wine into the blood ; which change the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation.
7. I also confess that under either kind alone Christ is received whole and entire, and a
true sacrament.
8. I firmly hold that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein detained are helped by
the suffrages of the faithful.
Likewise, that the saints reigning with Christ are to be honored and invoked (venerandos
atgm invoc-andos esse), and that they offer up prayers to God for us ; and that their relics
are to be held in veneration (esse venerandas).*
0. I most firmly assert that the images of Christ and of the perpetual Virgin, the Mother
of God, and also of other saints, ought to be had and retained, and that due honor and vener-
ation aie to be given them.
I also affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the Church, and that the
use of them is most wholesome to Christian people.3
III. ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND SOLEMN PLEDGES (1564).
10. I acknowledge the holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church as the mother and mistress
of all churches, and I promise and swear (spondeo ac juro) true obedience to the Bishop of
Rome, as the successor of St. Peter, prince of the Apostles, and as the vicar of Jesus Christ.
11. I likewise undoubtingly receive and profess all other things delivered, defined, and de-
clared by the sacred Canons and oecumenical Councils, and particularly by the holy Council
of Trent ; and I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all here-
sies which the Church has condemned, rejected, and anathematized.
12. I do at this present freely profess and truly hold this true Catholic faith, without
which no one can be saved (extra quam nemo salwu esse potest) ; and I promise most con-
stantly to retain and confess the same entire and inviolate,* with God's assistance, to the end
of my life. And I will take care, as far as in me lies, that it shall be held, taught, and
preached by my subjects, or by those the care of whom shall appertain to me in my office.
This I promise, vow, and swear — so help me God, and these holy Gospels of God.
1 It is characteristic that the Scriptures are put after the traditions, and admitted only in
a restricted sense, the Roman Church being made the only interpreter of the Word of God.
Protestantism reverses the order, and makes the Bible the rule and corrective of ecclesiastical
traditions.
a This should properly be a separate article, but in the papal bulls it is connected with the
eighth article.
3 This should likewise be a separate article, but is made a part of article 9.
4 For inviolatam the Roman Bullaria raad immaculatam.
100 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
§ 26. THE ROMAN- CATECHISM, 1566.
Latin Editions.
Catec.hismus ex decreto Cone. Trident, Pit V. jvtwu ecfrftwt, Roma! up. Paulum Mumitimn, 1506, In odltlonn
of different sizes, very often reprinted all over Europe.
Catechitmits ad Parochos, ex deweto Concilii Tridentini editm. MX Pii V, Pont. J/«#. jwttnt jirimnilifatut.
Syncerus et integer, wicndisque ttfrvmi repurgatm opcrfi P. D. L. //. /*. A quo cut atMitun tipjiaratwi ad
Cateahitimum, in quo ratio, auctores, approbatory et UHUH declarants r, Lugdunl, \(W ; Purls, KJ71 ; Lovnn.
1678; Paris, 1CS4; Colon. 1039, 1008, 1731 ; Aug. Vindel. 1702; lugduii. 1821); Mechlin, ls.il • Ha(ihl>. IHM
(730 pp.).
Catechiiwiw ex decreto Cone. Tridentini ad Parochos Pii Quinti Pont. Max. jiuunt editm. A </ wlitfannn
Romae A.D. 1506 juris publici faetam accuratissime cxprmw, cd. Btereotypa VI. f Lipriiu (TawlmltK),
1869, 8vo.
Also to STBKTWOLP et KLBNBB: lAbri Symo. eccl cath., Tom. I. pp. 101-712. A critical edition, indi-
cating the different divisions, the quotations from the Scripture^ the Councils, and other documenttt.
Translations,
The Catechism for the Curates, composed by the Council of Trent, amd puWtohftf by (wnmmiA of Pope /Vtw
the Fifth, ffaitttfulty translated into English. Perm/tent vupertarwm* London, 10H7.
Tlie Catechism, of the Council of Trent, translated into English by J. Donovan, Baltimore, I82J>.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, translated into Bnglteh, with Notes, by T. A. Buckley, U,A., Lon-
don, 1852, 8vo.
German translations, first, by Paul Hofuim, Dillingen, 1C08, 1576 ; another at WIen, 1703 ; one by T, W.
Eodemann, Gottingen, 1844; and by Ad. Busc, Bielefeld, (with the Lat. text), 3d ed. 1867, 2 vole.
French translations, published at Bordeaux, 1508 ; Paris, 1578, 1050 (by P. de la Hayc), 1673, otc.
History.
JULTT POQIANI SFNENSis (d. 1507) : Epistolce et Orations olim collector, ab Antonio Maria tfmtfttrm, nunti
ab Hieronymo Lagomarsinio e Soctetate Jesu advocationibun illustrates ac yrfnwm cditw, Ronu, VoU !.
1752; 11.1756; HI. 1757; IV. 1758.
Apparatus ad Catechismum, etc., mentioned above, by an anonymous author (perhaps Anton, Kcginal-
dus), first published in the edition of the Catechism, Lugd.1059. The chief source of information.
J. C. KSOHBE: Catech. Geschichte tier Pabntlichen Kircht, Jen. 1758.
KOLLNBB: Symbolik der rfrm. Kirch?, pp. 100-100. K. gives a liHt of other works on the subject.
The KOMAN CATECHISM was proposed by the Council of Trent, which
entered upon some preparatory labors, but at its last BOKsion committed
the execution to the Pope.1 The object was to regulate the impor-
tant work of popular religions instruction, and to bring it into harmony
with the decisions of the Council.2 Pius IV. (d. 1505), under the ad-
vice of Cardinal Carlo Borromeo (Archbishop of Milan), intrusted the
work to four eminent divines, viz., LEONARDO MAEINI (afterwards Arch-
bishop of Lanciano), EGIDIO FOSOARAKI (Bishop of Modcna), Muzro
1 Sessio XXIV. 2)e Reformation.*) cap. 7 (ed. Richter, p. 844), tho BfehopH aro directed
to provide for the instruction of Catholics, 'juxtaformam a sanc.ta synodo in catcc/tm siM/u/fa
sacramentis prasscribendam, quam episcopi in vulgarem Unguam fide liter vwti, atqw. a jHttw/ris
omnibus popub exponi curabunt.' According to Sarpi, a draft of the proposed Catechism wan
laid before the Synod, but rejected. In the 25th and last session (hold Doc, 24, I AGIO, tho
Synod intrusted the Pope (Pius IV.) with the preparation of an index of prohibited hooks, a
catechism, and an edition of the liturgical books ('idemque de caterfiismo a Patritntu, quibus
illud tnandatum fuerat, et de missali^ et breviario fieri tnand&t,' p. 471).
8 Several catechisms, not properly authorized, had appeared before and during tho (Council
of Trent to counteract the Lutheran and Reformed Catechisms, which did so much to Hpraid
and popularize the Reformation. See a list of them in Streitwolf and Klener, I. p. i.«iv., and
in Kollner, p. 1C9.
§ 2G. TltB ROMAN CATECHISM. 101
CALINI (Archbishop of Jadera-Zara, in Dalmatia), and FRANCESCO Fu-
RKIRO (of Portugal). Three of them were Dominicans (as was the Pope
himself). This explains the subsequent hostility of the Jesuits. JBor-
romeo superintended the preparation with great care, and several
accomplished Latin scholars, especially Jul. Pogianus, aided in the
style of composition.1 The Catechism was begun early in 1564, and
substantially finished in December of the same year, but subjected for
revision to Pogianus in 15G5, and again to a commission of able divines
and Latinists. It was finally completed in July, 1566, and published
by order of Pope Pius V., in September, 1566, and soon translated into
all the languages of Europe. Several Popes and Bishops recommended
it in the highest terms. The Dominicans and Jansenists often appealed
to its authority in the controversies about free will and divine grace,
but the Jesuits (Less, Molina, and others) took ground against it, and
even charged it with heresy.
The work is intended for teachers (as the title ad Parochos indi-
cates), not for pupils. It is a very full popular manual of theology,
based upon the decrees of Trent. It answers its purpose very well, by
its precise definitions, lucid arrangement, and good style.
The Eoman Catechism treats, in four parts : 1, de Symbolo a/postal-
ico; %, de Sacrwnetitis ; 3, de Deoalogo ; 4, de Oratione Dominica.
It was originally written and printed without divisions.2 Its theology
belongs to the school of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, and hence it
displeased the Jesuits. While it passes by certain features of the Ro-
man system, as the indulgences and the rosary, it treats of others which
were not touched upon by the Fathers of Trent, as the Umbwjpatrwn,
the doctrine of the Church, and the authority of the Pope.
Notwithstanding the high character and authority of this production,
it did not prevent the composition and use of many other catechisms,
especially of a more popular kind and in the service of Jesuitism,
The most distinguished of these are two Catechisms of the Jesuit
PETER CANISIUS (a larger one for teachers, 1554, and a smaller one for
1 Winer, Guerieke, Mohler, and others, ascribe the Latinity of the Catechism to Paulus
Manutius, the printer of the same ; but he himself, in his epistles, where he mentions all his
literary labors, says nothing about it.
8 The division into four parts, and of these into chapters and questions, appeared first in
the edition of Fabricius Lodius, Col. 1572, and Antw. 157*. Other editions vary in the
arrangement.
102 TME.CKKKDS OF
pupils, 1566); the Catechism of Cardinal BKLLARMIN (1603), which
Clement VIII. and later Popes commended as an authentic and useful
exposition of the Roman Catechism, and which is much used by mis-
sionaries; and the Catechism of BORBUET for the diocese of Moaux
(1687). The Roman Church allows an endless multiplication of such
educational books with adaptations to different nationalities, ages, de-
grees of culture, local wants and circumstances, provided they agree
with the doctrinal system set forth by the Council of Trent. Most of
these books, however, must now be remodeled and adjusted to the
Council of the Vatican.1
§ 27. THE PAPAL BULLS AGAINST THE JANSENISTS, 1658 AND 1713.
CORNELIUS JANBENITTS (Episcopi Ipreusis, 1585-1688): Auguntinus, sen doctrina Augustini <fo lattnwnat
naturae sanitate, cegritinHne, et niediciina, adv. Pelaffianots et Meuurtlienwit, Lovnn. 1040, tt voK ; Parin, UJ4I ;
Kouen, 1643 (with a Synopsis vitce Jansenify. Prohibited, together with the Jesuit autithiuuiH, by Pope
Urban VIII., 1642.
ST. CYBAN (Du VERGIEE, d. 1643) : Aureliutt, 1633 : again, Paris, 1640, A companion to JauBtm'H * AugUH-
tiuas,' and called after the other name of the great Bishop of Hippo.
ANTHONY ARNAXJLW (Doctor of the Sorbonne, d. at Brussels, 105)4) : CMttwf*, Paris, 177#-81, 49 vote, in 44.
Letters, sermons, ascetic treatises, controversial books against Jesuits (Maimbourg, Annat), Protestant*
<Jurieu, Aubertiu), and philosophers (Descartes, Malcbrancho).
M. LKYDEOKER (Kef. Prof, at Utrecht, d. 1T21) : Hitttoria Jamcnismi, Utr. 1605,
GBBBBBON : flistoire general? de Jansenisme, Amst. 1700.
LucoiiEsiNt: Hittt.polem. Jansenisnvi, Rome, 1711, 3 volt*.
FONTAINE: M&nwirea pour servir a, Vhistoire de Port-Royal (Utrecht), 1738, 2 vole.
Collectio nova actorum Cowttit. Unigenitus, ed. R. J. DUBOIH, Lugd, 1725.
DOM. DE CotONtA : Diction, des livrett JanstwittteH, Lyons, 1732, 4 vols.
H. RETTOIIUN : Qeschichte wn Port-Royal^ Ilamb. 1839-44, 2 vols. Comp, his monograph on /V*«?flJ, tttid
his art. Jansen and Jansenismus in Ilerzog's JUmyklop. 2d ed. Vol. VI. pp. 481-498.
C. A. SAINTE-BKUVIC : Port-Royal, Paris, 1840-42, 2 vols.
Abbe GhDTJBTTftB : Jans&iisme et Jimitifmie, un examen des accusations de Jam., otc., Parin, 1857. (loin-
pare his Hifitoire de Valise de France, cowtfose sur lea documents originwtx et anihrntiqwH, Pnrln, 1H47-56,
12 vols. Placed on the index of prohibited books, 1852. The author has nince pnnHod from the Roman
to the Greek Church.
W. HKNMUY JKWVIS: The Qallican Church: A Historif of the Ohurch of Francffrtnn 1510 to Me /fw>-
lution, Lond. 1872, 2 vols. On Jansenism, fee Vol. I. chaps. xi.-xiv., and Vol. II. chaps, v., vl, and vlil
FJRANOTCS MABTIN: Angeliqite Arnauld, Aliens of Port-Royal, London, 187B.
(The controversial literature on Janseuiwrn in the Rational Library at Paris araouuts to more than
three thousand volumes.)
On the Janpenists, or Old Catholics, in Holland.
DUPAO DE BJCLLUKUUPK : H. tie Valise metropol d* Utrecht, Utr. 1784, 8d ed, 1852,
WALOII : Neueste Rel Qeschichte, Vol. VI. pp. 82 sqq,
THROL. QUART ALSOHTITFT, Tdb. 1826.
ATTGTISTI: Das Erzlisthitm Utrecht, Bonn, 1838.
S. P. TBRGVLLRS: The Jansenints: their Rise, Persecutions &?/ the Jesuits, and existing JRrmnan^ Lon-
don, 1851 (with portraits of Jansenius, St. Cyran, and the Mere Angclique).
1 Thus, for instance, in Keenan's Controversial Catechism, as published by the 'Oatliolio
Publishing Company,' New Bond Street, London, the pretended doctrine of papnl infallibility
was expressly denied as 'a Protestant invention ; it is no article of tbe Catholic fnilh ; no
decision of the Pope can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the
teaching body, that is, by the Bishops of the Church. ' But since 1871 the leaf containing thin
question and answer has been canceled and another substituted. So says Oxenham, in his
translation of Dollinger on the Reunion of Churches, p. 126, note. The same IH true of many
German and French Catholic Catechisms.
§ 27. THE PAPAL BULLS AGAINST THE JANSEtflSTS, 1653 AttD 1713. 103
J, M. NBALK : A History of the so-called Janaenist Church of Holland, etc., London, 185T. Neale visited
the Old Catholics in Holland in 1S51, and predicted for them happier days.
Fa. Niri»oLi>: Die altkatholteche JKirche des Erzbinthwns Utrecht. Geschiohtl Parallels zur altkathol. Qe-
meindebildung m Deutsohlandj Heidelberg, 1872.
The remaining doctrinal decrees of the Eoman Church relate to in-
ternal controversies among different schools of Eoman Catholics.
JANSKNISM, so called after Cornelius Jansenius (or Jausen), Bishop of
Ypres, and supported by the genius, learning, and devout piety of some
of the noblest minds of France, as St. Cyran, Arnauld, Nicole, Pas-
cal, Tillemont, the Mother Angelique Arnauld, and other nuns of the
once celebrated Cistercian convent Port-Royal des Champs (a few
miles from Versailles), was an earnest attempt at a conservative doc-
trinal and disciplinary reformation in the Eoman Church by reviving
the Augustinian views of sin and grace, against the semi-Pelagian doc-
trines and practices of Jesuitism, and made a near approach to evangel-
ical Protestantism, though remaining sincerely Koman Catholic in its
churchly, sacerdotal, and sacramental spirit, and legalistic, ascetic piety.
It was most violently opposed and almost totally suppressed by the com-
bined power of Church and State in France, which in return reaped the
Revolution. It called forth two Papal condemnations, with which we
are here concerned.
I. The bull 'Crac OCCASIONS' of Innocent X. (who personally knew
and cared nothing about theology), A.D. 1653. It is purely negative,
and condemns the following live propositions from a posthumous work
of Jansenius, entitled Augustinus.1
(1.) The fulfillment of some precepts of God is impossible even to just
men according to their present ability (secundwn jprcesentes quas habent
vires), and the grace is also wanting to them by which they could be
observed (deest illis gratia, quapossililiafiant).
(2.) Interior grace is never resisted in the state of fallen nature.
1 The book is called after the great African Church Father, whose doctrines it reproduced,
and was published by friends of the author in 1640, two years after his death. On Jansen,
comp. the Dutch biography of HEESER: Historisch Verhaal van de Gehoorte, Leven, etc.,
van Cornelius Jansenius, 1727. He was born near Leerdam, in Holland, 1585, studied in
Paris, was Professor of Theology in the University of Louvain, Bishop of Ypres 1 635, and
died 1(538. He read Augustine's works against Pelagius thirty times, the other works ten
times. His book was finished shortly before his death, and advocates the Augustinian system
on total depravity, the loss of free-will, irresistible grace, and predestination. In his will he
submitted it to the Holy See. He resembles somewhat his countryman, Pope Adrian VI.,
who vainly endeavored to reform the Papacy.
104 THE CREEDS o# CHKISTENDOM.
(3.) For merit or demerit in the state of fallen nature man need not
be exempt from all necessity, but only from coercion or constraint
(Ad tnerendum et demerendum in statu natures Icijmv, non 'wquii'itur
in homine libertas a necessitate, sed sufficit libertas tt coactionc — that
is, from violence and natural necessity).
(4.) The Semi-Pelagians admitted the necessity of prevenient interior
grace for every action, even for the beginning of faith ; but they were
heretical (in eo erant hceretici) in believing this grace to be tmoh as
could be resisted, or obeyed by the human will (earn gratiam talcm
esse, cui Cosset Jmmana wluntas resistere^ vel obtemperare).
(5.) It is semi-Pelagian to say that Christ died and shed his blood
wholly (altogether) for all men.1
The Jansenists maintained that these propositions were not taught
by Jansenius, at least not in the sense in which they were condemned ;
that this was a historical question of fact (question defait\ not a dog-
matic question of right (droit) ; and, while conceding to the Pope the
right to condemn heretical propositions, they denied his infallibility in
deciding a question of fact, about which he might be misinformed,
ignorant, prejudiced, or taken by surprise.
But Pope Alexander VIL, in a bull of 1665, commanded all the
Jansenists to subscribe a formula of submission to the bull of Inno-
cent X., with the declaration that the five propositions were taught in
the book of Cornelius Jansen in the sense in which they were con-
demned by the previous Pope.2
The Jansenists, including the nuns of Port-Royal, refused to submit.
Many fled to the Netherlands. The Pope abolished their famous con-
vent (1709), the building was destroyed by order of Louis XIV, (1710),
even the corpses of the illustrious Tillemonts, Aruaulds, Nicoloa, Do
Sacys, and others, were disinterred with gross brutality (171 1), and the
church itself was demolished (1713). No wonder that such ba:l<arous
1 *
* Semipelagianum est dicere, Christum pro omnibus omnino mortuum esse aut mntjuinem
fudisseS This supralapsarian proposition is condemned as falsa, temeraria, 3canda/os^itnpm,
blasphemy et hceretica. See the five propositions of Jansen in Denzinger'w fine fur,, pp. 81 C,
317.
a 'Ego N. constitution* apostolicce Innocentii X., data die 81. Maji 16f>3} et const itntioni
Alexandri VIL, data die 16. Octobris 1G66, summorum Pontificwn, me subjicio, et qwnqu* pro-
positiones ex Cornelii Jansenii libro, cui notnen Auyustinus, excerptas, et in sensu ab eodm
auctore intento, prout illas per dictas constitutiones Sedes Apostalic.a datnnavit, sincere animo
rejicio ac damno, et itajuro. Sic me Deus adjuvet, et hose sancta Dei evangelia.'
§ 27. THE PAPAL BULLS AGAINST THE JANSENISTS, 1653 AND 1713. 105
tyranny and cruelty, perpetrated in the holy name of the Olmrcli of
Christ, bred a generation of skeptics and infidels, who at last banished
the Church and religion itself from the territory of France. Cardinal
Noailles, who from weakness had lent his high authority to these out-
rages, made afterwards, in bitter repentance, a pilgrimage to the ruins
o£ Port-Royal, and, looking over the desecrated burial-ground, he ex-
claimed : ' Oh I all these dismantled stones will rise up against me at
the day of judgment ! Oh ! how shall I ever bear the vast, the heavy
load!51
II. The more important bull * UNIG-ENITUS (DEI FILIUS)', issued by
Pope Clement XI., Sept., 1713, condemns one hundred and one sen-
tences of the Jansenist PASQUIER QUESNEL (cL 1719), extracted from his
moral reflections on the New Testament.2
This bull is likewise negative, but commits the Church of Borne still
more strongly than the former against evangelical doctrines. Several
of the passages selected are found almost literally in Augustine and
St. Paul ; they assert the total depravity of human nature, the loss of
liberty, the renewing power of the free grace of Grod in Christ, the right
and duty of all Christians to read the Bible.
1 GBBGOIRK: Les mines de Port-Royal, Par. 1709. M4moires sur la destruction de P. R. des
Champs, 1711. Jervis, 1. c. Vol. II. pp. 1 9 1 sqq. TREGBLLES says, 1. c. p. 47 : l The united acts
of Louis XIV. and the Jesuits, in crushing alike Protestants, Quietists, and Jansenists, drove
religion well-nigh out of France. What a spectacle ! The same monarch, under the influ-
ence of the same evil-minded and pharisaical woman (Madame de Maintenon), persecuting
not only Protestants, hut also such men as Felaelon, among the brightest and holiest of those
who owned the authority of Rome. Thus was the train laid which led to the fearful explo-
sion in which altar and throne alike fell, and atheism was nationally embraced. How the
mind of Voltaire was affected by the abominable deeds of men who professed the name of
Christ, is shown by his juvenile verses, in which he speaks so indignantly of the destruction
of Port-ftoyal that he was sent for a year to the Bastile.'
a Pasquier or Paschasius Quesnel was bora at Paris, 1 634, studied at the Sorbonne, joined
the Congregation of the Oratory, and was appointed director of the institution belonging to
this order at Paris. He was a profound and devout student of the Scriptures and the Fathers,
edited the works of Leo I. (1675, with dissertations) in defense of the Gallican Church against
the Ultramontane Papacy (hence the edition was condemned by the Congregation of the In-
dex), was exiled from France 1684, joined Arnauld at Brussels, and died at Amsterdam 1719.
After the death of Arnauld he was considered the head of the Jansenists. His commentary
is one of the most spiritual and reverent. It is entitled ' Le Nouv. Testament enfranpois avec
des reflexions morales sur chaque vers, et pour en rendre la lecture plus utih, et la meditation
plus ais€et' Paris, 1687, 2 vols.; 1694; Amstetd. 1736, 8 vols. ; also in Latin and other
languages; Engl. ed. London, 1819-25, 4 vols. The Gospels were repeatedly published,
with an introductory essay by Bishop Daniel Wilson, London and New York. Comp. Causa
Quesnelliana, Brussels, 1704.
106 TH:B CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
The following are the most important of these propositions:1
(2.) Jem Chrlsti gratia, principfwn efficax bonl ("ujvsnutquc generis, ncccssarin f$t ad omne
opus bonum; absque ilia non solum nilril Jit, sed nvc Jicri potest.
(3.) In vannm, Doming prtxicipis, si tu ipse non das, quod prwci/ris. (Compare the similar
sentence of Augustine, which wus so offensive to Peltigius : Da quodjubes, ct jultc quid vis.)
(18.) Quando Deus vult animam salvam J'acvre, et earn tangit interiori gratiw sutv
nulla voluntas humana ei resistit.
(18.) Semen verbi, quod manus Dei irrigat, semper affcrt f rue turn suum.
(21.) Gratia Jesu Christi est gratia fortis, patens, suprema, inmncibilts, utpote qu(* est
operatic voluntatis omnipotentis, sequela et imitatio operationis Did incarnantis ct resuscitanti*
Filium suum.
(27.
28.
29.
30.
38.
39.
Fides est prima gratia etfons omnium aliarum. (2 .Pet. 1. 3.)
Prima gratia, quam Deus concedit peccatori, est pwcatorum remissio.
JSxtra ecclesiam nulla conceditur gratia.*
Omnes, quos Deus vult salvareper Christum, salvantur iiiftillibiUter.
Peccator non est liber, nisi ad malum, sine gratia Libcratoris.
Voluntas^ quam gratia non prwvenit, ni/iil habet Iwninis, nisi ad abcrrandum^ ardorts,
nisi ad se prcecipitandum, virium nisi ad se vulnerandum ; est cap ax omnis mail et incapax ad
omne bonum.
JtO.) Sine gratia nihil amare possumus^ nisi ad nostram vorulemnationeju.
>8.^ Nee Deus est nee rcligio, ubi non est charitas. (1 John iv. 8.)
>9.) Oratio impiorum est novuw peccatum; et quod Deus illis concedit, est not'ttm in eos
cium.
(69.) Fides, usus, augmentum et premium Jidei, totum est donumpurw HbertiKtaHs />»»
(72.) Nota ecclesice Christiana, est, quod sit catholica, comprehendens et vmnes angclos ctrli^
et omnes electos etjustos terrce et omnium so2culorum.
(75.) JEcclesia est unus solus homo compositus ex pluribus membris, quorum CVjrzVwr vst ca-
put, vita, subsistentia et persona ; unus solus Christus compositus ex plitribux sawtis, quorum
est Sanctiftcator.
(76.) Nihil spatiosius Ecclesia Dei; quia omnes electi etjusti omnium smtlorum ilium com-
ponunt (Eph. ii. 22).
(77.) Qui non ducit vitam dignamfilio Dei et membro Christi, cessat inter ius /utbtrc Deum
pro Patre et Christum pro capite,
(79.) Utile et necessarum est omni tempore, omni loco, et omni personarum genm, studcre et
cognoscere spiritum, pietatem et myst&ria savraz Scwpturw.
(80.) Lectio sacrce Smipturce est pro omnibus. (John v. 89 ; ActB xvii. II.)
(81.) Obscuritas sancti verbi Dei non est laicis ratio dispensandi .ve ipitos ab ojus lectwne*
(82.) Dies Dominicu* a Christianis debet sanctijicari Ifctionibus pictatis et super omnia
sanctarum Scripturarum. Damnosum est, velle Chrislianum ab hat; leutiotM rttrafterA.
(84.) Abripere e Chrixtianorum manibus novum Twtamentum scu eis illud cfausum tenere
auferendo eis rnodum istud intelligendi, est illis Christi os obturare.
(85.) Interdicere Christianis lectionem sarro?. Swipturw, pra'sertim Jtivangelii, est interdi-
cere usum luminisfiliis lucis etfacere, ut patiantur speciem quamdam (wcowmuni<Mtioni$.
(92.) Patipotius in pace excommunicationem et anathema injwttum, qwrnprodert veritatam,
est imitari sanctum Paulum; tantum abest, ut sit erigere se contra auctoritatem aut scindere
unitatem.
(100.) Tempus deplorabile, quo creditur honorari Deus p&rsequendo vmtaUm ejusque diwi*
pulos! . . . Frequenter credimus sacriftcare Deo impium, et sacrificamus diabolo Dei servum.
These and similar propositions, some of them one-sided and exagger-
ated, many of them clearly patristic and biblical, are indiscriminately
1 Denzinger's JSnchir., pp. 351-361.
* The denial of this proposition implies the assertion that there is grace outside of the Church,
though not sufficient for salvation; else it would be inconsistent with the Roman Catholio doc-
trine t JSxtra ecclesiam nulla salus. '
§ 27. THE PAPAL BULLS AGAINST THE JANSENISTS, 1C53 AND 1713.
condemned by the bull (fnigenitus^ as 'false, captious, ill-sounding,
offensive to pious ears, scandalous, rash, injurious, seditious, impious,
blasphemous, suspected of heresy and savoring of heresy itself, near
akin to heresy, several times condemned, and manifestly renewing
various heresies, particularly those which are contained in the infamous
propositions of Jansenius!'
A large portion of the French clergy, headed by the Archbishop of
Paris, Cardinal de Noailles, who repented of his part in the destruction
of Port-Royal, protested against the bull, and appealed from the Pope
to a future council. But fi when Rome has spoken, the cause is finished.'
The bull ffiiigenit'us was repeatedly confirmed by the same Clement XL,
A.D. 1718 (in the bull 'Fastomlis Ojfioii9), Innocent XIIL, 1722, Bene-
dict XIII. and a Roman Synod, 1725, Benedict XIY., 1756 ; it was ac-
cepted by the Gallican clergy 1730, and, as Denzinger says, by £ the whole
Catholic world' ((ab universo mundo catholico'). Even the miracles
on the grave of a Jansenist saint (Frangois Paris, who died 1727, after
the severest self-denial, with a protest against the bull Umgenitus in
his hand), could not save Jansenism from destruction in France.1
But a remnant fled to the more liberal soil of Protestant Holland,
and was there preserved as a perpetual testimony against Jesuitism, and,
as it now seems, for an important mission in connection with the Old
Catholic protest against the decisions of the Vatican Council.
NOTM ON TUB JANSKNISTH IN HOLLAND. — The remnant of the Jansenists or the Old Catho-
lics in Holland date their separate existence from the protest against the bull Unigenitus, but
are properly the descendants of the original Catholics. They disown the name S/ansenists,' on
the ground of alleged error in the papal bulls concerning the true teaching of Jansen, and call
themselves the * Old Episcopal Clergy of the Netherlands;' but they are strongly opposed to
the theology and casuistry of the Jesuits, and incline to the Augustinian views of sin and
grace. In other respects they are good Catholics in doctrine, worship, and mode of piety;
they acknowledge the decrees and canons of Trent, and even the supremacy of the Pope with-
in the limits of the old Gallican theory. They inform him of the election of every new
bishop, which the Pope as regularly declares illegitimate, null, and void. They say that the
tyranny of a father does not absolve his children from the duty of obedience, and hope against
hope that God will convert the Pope, and turn his heart towards them. They number at
present one archbishopric of Utrecht and two bishoprics of Deventer and Haarlem, 25 con-
gregations, and about 6000 members. They live very quietly, surrounded by Komanists
and Protestants, and are much respected, like the Moravians, for their character and piety.
The Pope, after condemning them over and over again, appointed, in 1853, five new bishop-
rics in IloUund, with a rival archbishop at Utrecht, and thus consolidated and perpetuated
the schism. When the decree of the Immaculate Conception was promulgated in 1854, the
1 The Jesuits, of course, ascribed the Jansenist miracles, visions, and ecstatic convulsions
to the devil
TIJK CREEDS OF rilKISTKNDOM.
three Old Catholic Bishops issued n pastoral letter, in wlrioh they reject the new dogma as
contrary to the Scriptures and early tradition, and as larking the threefold U'j*t of catholicity
(semper, uhique, ab omnibus). The Vatican decree of Papal Infallibility, and the Old Catholic,
movement in Germany have brought this long afflicted mul perscx-uti'd remnant of Jnn>euism
into new notice. The Old Catholics of Germany, holding fust to an unbroken episcopal sue-
cession, looked to their brethren in Holland for aid in effecting an organization when it should
become necessary. At their invitation, Archbishop Loos, of Utrecht (a venerable and amia-
ble old gentleman ', made a tour of visitation in the summer of 18712, and confirmed about livo
hundred children in several congregations in Germany, blessing God that his little Church wan
spared tor happier days. After his death the Bishop of Devoiitcr consecrated Prof. Keinkcns
Bishop for the Old Catholics in Germany, Aug. 11,1 H7J5. The Old Catholics of Holland agrco
with those in Germany : 1. In maintaining the doctrinal basis of Tridentino Komanism ; 2. l\\
protesting against all subsequent papal decisions, more particularly the. hull Unu/cnin^, the
. decree of the Immaculate Conception (1854), and the Vatican decree of Papal Infallibility.
[The Jansenist Abp. of Utrecht was excommunicated by Loo XIII., Fob. iiH, 1893. Sec
Mirbt, p. 488, and also the Old Catholic bishops of Germany and Switzerland.—- IOn-1
§ 28. TUB PAPAL DEFINITION OK TIIM IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF TUB
VIKGIN MAKY, 1854.
Literature.
I. In favor of the Immaculate Conception of Mary :
The papal bull of Pius IX., TiuiffaMlia Dew,' Dec. 8 (10), ISM.
JOHN PKRRONK (Professor of the Jesuit College in Rome, and one of the chief advisers ot Phw TX. In
framing his decree) : Can the rwmaoulate Conception of tlw UlatMd Virgin Mary be defined by a ttoiftnatw
Decree? In Latin, Rome, 1847, dedicated to Pi UP IX., with a letter of thnnkn foy'tbu Pope ; Norman' trans-
lation, bylXett and ScJieltt, Regeirnhnrg, 1840. (I u*ed the German edition.) See also PWOHB'M /*«•/<»«•-
twnes theologicce, Append, to Tom. VI., eel. Itati?*b. 1854
C. PAS&AGMA: De immaculate) Deipam (temper Virginia concept*) Bom. 1854 nqtj., Tom. III. 4to. (The
author has since become half heretical, at least a« regards the lomporal power of the Tope, ami W«M
obliged to flee from Rome. See hiss pamphlet, on the subject, iHtji, which wna placed on tho /wte)
H. DBNZINGBB (d. 180;2): Die Lehre von far unbejleekten Ktnpfdngnitus der *«Zty«fe»l/ittiafraic,Wamb. 18C5.
AUG.DB KOSKOV-X.NY (Episc. Nitriensis): tieofa Virgo Maria in *uo concoytu inwwuhtto #» monurnentit
ovmium seeulorivm devtwnttrata, Budapest, 18T4, 6 vote.
II. Against the Immaculate Conception:
JTTA.N PE TcrnBEoiiKMATA.: Traetatw de veritate conception** beatfwfytuB wv/?'n?V>, etc., Kotno, 15-17, 4to;
newly edited by Dr. B. B. PUBKY, with a preface and notoy, London, 1801). (lard. Job. do TurrocroiuAtu]
or Torquemada (not to be confounded with the Great Inquisitor Thonwn do T.), attended an wttfitottv
aacri palatii the Geiieral Councils of Bawlc and f errant, and, although a faithful champion of Popery,
he opposed, as »i Dominican, the Immaculate Conception. lie died, 14(VS, at Home.
J. DR LAUNOY (or Launoins, a learned Janwenist and Doctor of the Sorbonno, d. 1078) • PrawiHptftont*
fe Cowepiu B. Martce Virginia, 3d ed. 1677 ; nlso in the ill-fit volume of his Opera umnia, Colonii AUobro-
gura, fol. 1781, pp. 9-43, in French and L«Uu.
G. B. Stum ; Art. Marin, Mutter fan Ihrrn, in Iler'/og'B Kiusykl^h Vol. IX. pp. 94 Hqq.
E. PRRTTSB: T>te rnmiwhe Lehre. von tier vnfoflecleten MmgtfJngnfw. Aw dm Qwtlen darytstdlt imd! am
Gottea Wort widerlegt, Berlin, 1855. The same, tvanHlnted into English hy fltoo. OZa(/«f«w, Edinburgh,
1867. The author has since become a RoronnlHt. and recalled his bowk, Dec. 1871,
H. B. SMITH (Professor in the Union Theological Seminary, N. Y.) : The Dogma qf the Iwnwnitot* Cow-
ce^tion, in the Methodist Qiiarfrrly JRp.wew, New York, for 1855, pp. 275-811.
Dr. PTOEY: JMnwtbm, Part II, Lond. 1867.
Art, in Christian Remembrancer for Oct. 1855; Jan. 1866 ; July, 1808.
K. HABR : Handlntch d&r Protest. Polemik gegtn die rrJm, kath. Kirc-he, 8d ed. Leipz. 1871, pp, 884-844.
The first step towards the proclamation of the dogma of the IMMACU-
LATE CONCEPTION or THH YTRGIN MARY, which exempts her from all
contact with sin and guilt, was taken by Pope Pins IX., himself a most
devout worshiper of Mary, during his temporary exile at Gacita. In
an encyclical letter, dated Feb. 2, 1849, he invited the opinion of the
Bishops on the alleged ardent desire of the Catholic world that the
§ 28. PAPAL DEFINITION OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. 109
Apostolic See should, by some solemn judgment, define the Immaculate
Conception, and thus secure signal blessings to the Church in these
evil times. For, he added, * You know full well, venerable brethren, that
the whole ground of our confidence is placed in the most holy Yirgin,'
since { God has vested in her the plenitude of all good, so that hence-
forth, if there be in us any hope, if there be any grace, if there be any
salvation (si quid spei in nobis est, si quid gratice, si quid sa,lutis\ we
must receive it solely from her, according to the will of him who would
have us possess all through Mary.?
More than six hundred Bishops answered, all of them, with the
exception of four, assenting to the Pope's belief, but fifty-two, among
them distinguished German and French Bishops, dissenting from the
expediency or opportuneness of the proposed dogmatic definition.
The Archbishop of Paris (Sibour) apprehended injury to the Catholic
faith from the unnecessary definition of the Immaculate Conception,
which ' could be proved neither from the Scriptures nor from tradition,
and to which reason and science raised insolvable, or at least inextrica-
ble, difficulties.3 But this opposition was drowned in the general current.1
After the preliminary labors of a special commission of Cardinals
and theologians, and a consistory of consultation, Pope Pius, in virtue
of the authority of Christ and the holy Apostles Peter arid Paul, and
his own authority, solemnly proclaimed the dogma on the Feast of the
Conception, Dec. 8, 1854, in the Church of St. Peter, in the presence of
over two hundred Cardinals, Bishops, and other dignitaries, invited by
him, not to discuss the doctrine, but simply to give additional solemnity
to the ceremony of proclamation. After the mass and the singing of
the Veni Creator Spiritus, he read with a tremulous voice the con-
cluding formula of the bull ' Tn&ffaliUs Deusj declaring it to be a di-
vinely revealed fact and dogma, which must be firmly and constantly
believed by all the faithful on pain of excommunication, ' that the most
blessed Virgin Mary, in the first moment of her conception, by a special
grace and privilege of Almighty God, in virtue of the merits of Christ,
was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin?*
1 Perrone says : Vix quatuor responderunt negative quoad definitionem, et ex hie ipsis tres
brevi mutarunt sententiam. These letters, with others from sovereigns, monastic orders, and
Catholic societies, are printed in nine volumes.
3 *" Postquam numquam intflrmiftimus in hwuiilitate etjejunio priratas nostras el. public as JSc-
clesioz preces Deo Patri per Filium ejus offeree, ut Spiritus Sancti virtute mentem
HO THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
The shouts of the assembled multitude, the cannons of St. Angelo,
the chime of all the bells, the illumination of St. Peter's dome, the
splendor of gorgeous feasts, responded to the decree. Komo was in-
toxicated with idolatrous enthusiasm, and the whole Roman Catholic
world thrilled with joy over the crowning glory of the immaculate
queen of heaven, who would now be more gracious and powerful in
her intercession than ever, and shower the richest blessings upon the
Pope and his Church. To perpetuate the memory of the occasion, the
Pope caused a bronze tablet to be placed in the wall of the choir
of St. Peter's, with the inscription that, on the 8th of December, 1 <Sf>4,
he proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the JM-
jpara Virgo Maria, and thereby fulfilled the desire of the whole
Catholic world (totius orbis catholici dexideria), and a pompous mar-
ble statue of the Yirgin to be erected on the Piazza di Spagnia, facing
the palace of the Propaganda, and representing the Virgin in the attitude
of blessing, with Moses, David, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, as the prophetic
witnesses of her conception, at the foot of the column.1 lie ordered,
also, through the Congregation of Kites, the preparation of a new ma&B
and a new office for the festival of the Conception, which was published
Sept 25, 1863, and contains the prayer: c C Gk>d, who, by the immacu-
late conception of the Virgin, didst prepare a worthy dwelling for thy
Son: grant, we beseech thee, that, as thou didst preserve her from
every stain, in anticipation of the death of thy Son, so we also may,
through her intercession, appear purified before thy presence.'
The dogma lacks the sanction of an oecumenical Council, and rests
dirigere et c.onfirmare diynaretur, impforato universes cackstis curim pra'sidio^ <\t (uh'octitu cum
genitibus Paraclito Spiritu, eoque sic aspirante, ad lionorem Sttnctffi et fndinduw Triwtatis,
ad d&ciis et ornamentum Virginis Deipnrcp^ ad exaltationem jidti catholicec et r/jm/iVmfl? r«e-
ligionis augmentum, auctoritate Domini nostri Jesu Christi, beatorum Apostolorwn />e,tri et
Pauli, ac nostra declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimw, doctrinam, qum tenet, WUTIHSIMAM
VIRGINEM MARIAM IN PBIMO INSTANTI SUJD CONCEPTIONS FUISSK SINGULAR t OMNIPOTKNTIH
DEI GRATIA BT PKIVILEGIO, INTUITU MERITOUUM CHRI8TI JflSU 8ALVATORI8 HUMAN! OKNK-
BIS, AB OMNI ORIGINALIS OULPJB LABE PRESERVATAM IMMUNEM, QSSe a D&O MVfilatam (ttqm
iddrco ab omnibus Jidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam. Quapropter td f/ui ww$ etc, a
Nobis definitum est, quod Deus avertat, prcesumpserint corde santire, ii norerint ac porro scitiM,
se proprio judicio condemnatos, naufragium circa fidem passos totse, ft ab unitatfl JSnclesiM de-
fecisse, ac prceterca facto ipso suo semet poems a jure statutis subjicere, $i, quod corde, ten-
tiunf, verbo aut scripto, vel alio guovis externo modo significare ausifuerint.'
1 The statue of the Virgin is said to have come out of the Roman fabric with a hideous
crack, which was clumsily patched up. See Hase, Protest. Pokmik, 3d ed. p. 841, and
Freuss, 1. c. p. 197 (English edition).
§ 28. PAPAL DEFINITION OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.
solely on the authority of the Pope, who, in its proclamation, virtually
anticipated his own infallibility ; but it has been generally accepted by
subsequent assent, and must be considered as an essential and undoubted
part of the Eoman faith, especially since the Vatican Council has de-
clared the official infallibility of the Pope.
This extraordinary dogma lifts the Virgin Mary out of the fallen and
redeemed race of Adam, and places her on a par with the Saviour.
For if she is really free from all hereditary as well as actual sin and
guilt, she is above the need of redemption. Repentance, forgiveness,
regeneration, conversion, sanctitication are as inapplicable to her as to
Christ himself. The definition of such a dogma implies nothing less
than a Divine revelation ; for only the omniscient God can know the
fact of the immaculate conception, and only he can reveal it. He did
not reveal it to the inspired Apostles, nor to the Fathers. Did he re-
veal it to Pope Pius IX., in 1854, more than eighteen centuries after it
took place ?
Viewed from the Eoman point of view, the new dogma is the legiti-
mate fruit of the genuine spirit of modern Romanism. It only com-
pletes that Mariology, and fortifies that Mariolatry, which is the very
soul of its piety and public worship. We may almost call Romanism
the Church of the Virgin Mary — not of the real Virgin of the Gospels,
who sits humbly and meekly at the feet of her and our Lord and
Saviour in heaven, but of the apocryphal Virgin of the imagination,
which assigns her a throne high above angels and saints. This myth-
ical Mary is the popular expression of the Romish idea of the Church,
and absorbs all the reverence and affection of the heart. Her worship
overshadows even the worship of Christ. His perfect humanity, by
which he comes much nearer to us than his earthly mother, is almost
forgotten. She, the lovely, gentle, compassionate woman, stands in front ;
her Son, over whom she is supposed still to exercise the rights of her
divine maternity, is either the stern Lord behind the clouds, or rests as
a smiling infant on her supporting arms. By her powerful intercession
she is the fountain of all grace. She is virtually put in the place of
the Holy Spirit, and made the mediatrix between Christ and the be-
liever. She is most frequently approached in prayer, and the <Ave
Maria' is to the Catholic what the Lord's Prayer is to the Protestant.
If she hears all the petitions which from day to day, and from hour to
THE CKEEDS OF CHRISTKNDOM.
hour, rise up to her from many millions in every part of the globe, she
must, to all intents and purposes, be omnipresent and omniscient. She
is the favorite subject of Roman painters, who represent her as blend-
ing in harmony the spotless beauty of the Virgin and the tender care
of the mother, and as the crowned queen of heaven. Every event of
her life, known or unknown, even her alleged bodily assumption to
heaven, is celebrated with special zeal by a public festival.1 It i« al-
most incredible to what extent Romish books of devotion exalt the
Virgin. In the Middle Ages the whole Psalter was rewritten and made
to sing her praises, as c The heavens declare thy glory, 0 Mary ;' { Offer
unto our lady, ye sons of God, praise and reverence !' In St. Lignori's
much admired and commended 'Glories of Mary J she is called *our
life,' the 'hope of sinners,' can advocate mighty to save all,' a ' peace-
maker between sinners and God.' There is scarcely an epithet of
Christ which is not applied to her. According to Pope Pius IX,,
c Mary has crushed the head of the serpent,' i. e., destroyed the power
of Satan, ( with her immaculate foot !' Around her name clusters a mul-
titude of pious and blasphemous legends, superstitions, and impostures
of wonder-working pictures, eye-rotations, and other unnatural marvels;
even the cottage in which she lived was transported by angels through
the air, across land and sea, from Nazareth in Galilee to Lorotto in
Italy ; and such a silly legend was soberly and learnedly defended even
in our days by a Roman Archbishop.2
Romanism stands and falls with Mariolatry and Papal Infallibility ;
while Protestantism stands and falls with the worship of Christ as tho
only Mediator between God and man, and the all-sufficient Advocate
with the Father.
1 "Why should the fiction of t^ Assumption of Mary to heaven (as it is called in distinction from
the Ascension of Christ) not he proclaimed a divinely revealed fact and a binding dogma, as
well as the Immaculate Conception ? The evidence is about the same. If Mary was free from
all contact with sin, she can not have been subject to death and corruption, Tvhich are the wages
of sin. The silence of the Bible concerning her end might he turned to good account. Tra-
dition, also, can he produced in favor of the assumption. St. Jerome was inclined to believe
it, and even the great Augustine * feared to say that the blessed body, in which Christ had
been incarnate, could become food for the worms. ' The festival of the Assumption, which pre*
supposes the popular superstition, is older than the festival of the Immaculate Conception, and
is traced by some to the fifth or sixth century.
* Dr. Kenrick, of St. Louis, in his work on the 'Holy House,' a book which is said to be too
little known. See Smith, 1. c. p. 279.
§ 2<J. THti ARGUMENT FOR THE iMMACtfLA'ffi CONCEPTION. J13
§ 29. THE ARGUMENT FOR THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.
The importance of the subject justifies and demands a brief examine
tion of the arguments in favor of this novel dogma, which is one of the
most characteristic features of modern Romanism, and forms an im-
passable gulf between it and Protestantism. It is a striking proof of
Romish departure from the truth, and of the anti-Christian presumption
of the Pope, who declared it to be a primitive divine revelation ; while
it is in fact a superstitious fiction of the dark ages, contrary alike to the
Scriptures and to genuine Catholic tradition.
1. The dogma of the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary is unscrvpturdl,
and even anti-scriptural.
(a) The Scripture passages which Perrone and other champions of
the Immaculate Conception adduce are, with one exception, all taken
from the Old Testament, and based either on false renderings of the
Latin Bible, or on fanciful allegorical interpretation.
(1) The main (and, according to Perrone, the only) support is derived
from the protevangelium, Gen. iii. 15, where Jehovah Elohim says to
the serpent, according to the Latin Bible (which the Romish Church
has raised to an equality with the original) : * Ihimicitias jponam
inter te et mutter em, et semen tuum et semen illius; EPS A conteret
caput t^wm, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo ejus* (i. e., she shall crush thy
head, and thou shalt assail her heel). Here the i/psa is referred to the
woman (niulier\ and understood of the Virgin Mary.1 And it is in-
ferred that the divinely constituted enmity between Mary and Satan
must be unconditional and eternal, which would not be the case if she
had ever been subject to hereditary sin.2 To this corresponds the Romish
exegesis of the fight of the woman (i. e., the Church) with the dragon,
Rev. xii.4 sqq.; the woman being falsely understood to mean Mary.
Hence Romish art often represents her as crushing the head of the
dragon.
But the translation of the Vulgate, on which all this reasoning is
1 Pope Pius IX. has given his infallible sanction to this misapplication of the protevangelium
to Mary in the gallant phrase already quoted (p. 1 1 2) from his Encyclical on the dogma.
3 Spoil, in his defense of Romanism against Hase, argues in this way : The woman, whom
God will put in enmity against the devil, must he a future particular woman, over whom the
devil never had any power — that is, a woman who, hy the grace of God, was free from original
sin (Die Lehren der katholischen Kirche, 1865, p. 165).
114: THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
based, is contrary to the original Hebrew, which uses the masculine
form of the verb, HE (or IT, the seed of the woman), i. e., Christ, Khali
bruise, or crush, the serpent's head, i. e., destroy the devil's power ; it is
inconsistent with the last clause, c and thou shalt braise IHH (i.e., (Smut's)
heel] which contains a mysterious allusion to the crucifixion of the
seed, not of the woman ; and, finally, the Romish interpretation leads
to the blasphemous conclusion that Mary, and not Christ, has destroyed
the power of Satan, and saved the human race.1
(2) An unwarranted reference ot some poetic descriptions of the fair
and spotless bride, in the Song of Solomon, to Mary, instead of the
people of Jehovah or the Christian Church, Cant. iv. 7", according to the
Vulgate: 'Totapulchra es, arnica mea, et macula non cst in te? In
any case, this is only a description of the present character.
(3) An arbitrary allegorical interpretation of the c garden inclosed,
and fountain sealed,5 spoken of the spouse, Cant. iv. 1$ (Vulg. : <*hortu&
conclusus, fans signatus'),&nd the closed gate in the oast of the tem-
ple in the vision of Ezekiel, xliv. 1-3, of which it is said : ' It shall not
be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because Jehovah, the God
of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut It IB for the
prince ; the prince he shall sit in it, to eat broad before the Lord.'
This is a favorite support of the doctrine of tho perpetual virginity*
Ambrose of Milan (d. 397) was perhaps the first who found hero a type
of the closed womb of the Virgin, by which Christ entered into the
world, and who added to the miracle of a conception sine mro tho mir-
acle of a birth clauso utero? Jerome and other Fathers followed, and
1 The Hebrew text admits of no doubt ; for tho verb ^Xp1^, in the disputed clause, IK win.*-
culine (HE shall bruise, or crtu/i), and &Wn naturally refers to the preceding ft3?'tr (Iwr BKKD),
i. e., STO&jl 3HJ (the woman's SKBD), and not to tho more remote h^fcjt (tm/jA/j ). In the
Pentateuch the personal pronoun K*lJi (Ac) is indeed generis rownmnis, and stands also for the
feminine X^tl (she"), which (according to the Masora on Gen. xxxviii, 25) is found but cloven
times in the Pentateuch ; but in all these cases the masoretic punctuators wrote &Oh, to Hig-
nify that it ought to be read fr^tt (she). The Peshito, the Septuagint (aMc <rot rtjfn'i<nt
fce^aX^v), and other ancient versions, are all right. Even some MSB. of the Vulgate road
ipse for ipsa, and Jerome himself, the author of the Vulgate, in MB * Ifabre.w Qm/iVwa,' and
Pope Leo L, condemn the translation ipsa. But the blunder was favored by other Fathers
(Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory I.), who knew no Hebrew, and by the monastic asceticism
and fanciful chivalric Mariolatry of the Middle Ages. To the same influence must be traced
the arbitrary change of the Vulgate in the rendering of S]1!^ from c.ontwet (shall bruisfJ) into
insidiaberis (shall lie in wait, assail, pursue), so as to exempt the Virgin from the least injury.
* Epist. 42 ad Siricium; De inst. Virg., c. 8, and m his hymn A solis ortus catrdine. The
§ iii). THE ARGUMENT FOR THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. H5
drew a parallel between the closed womb of the Virgin, from which
Christ was born to earthly life, and the sealed tomb from which he
arose to heavenly life. But none of the Fathers thought of making
this prophecy prove the Immaculate Conception. Such exposition, or
imposition rather, is an insult to the Bible, as well as to every principle
of hermcneutics.
(4) Sap. i. 4 : c Into a malicious soul wisdom shall not enter ; nor
dwell in the body that is subject unto sin.' This passage (quoted by
Speil and others), besides being from an apocryphal book, has nothing
to do with Mary.
(5) Luke i. 28 : the angelic greeting, ' Hail (Mary), full of grace (gra-
tia plena)} according to the Komish versions, says nothing of the origin
of Mary, but refers only to her condition at the time of the incarnation,
and is besides a mistranslation (see below).
(5) All this frivolous allegorical trifling with the Word of God is
conclusively set aside by the positive and uniform Scripture doctrine
of the universal sinfulness and universal need of redemption, with the
single exception of oxir blessed Saviour, who was conceived by the
Holy Ghost without the agency of a human father. It is almost use-
less to refer to single passages, such as Rom. iii. 10, 23 ; v. 12, 18 ;
1 Cor. xv. 22 ; 2 Cor. v. 14, 15 ; Gal. iii. 22 ; Eph. ii. 3 ; 1 Tim. iv. 10 ; Psa.
li. 5. The doctrine runs through the whole Bible, and underlies the en-
tire scheme o£ redemption. St. Paul emphasizes the actual universality
of the curse of Adam, in order to show the virtual universality of the
salvation of Christ (Eom. v. 12 sqq. ; 1 Cor. xv. 22) ; and to insert an ex-
ception in favor of Mary would break the force of the argument, and
limit the extent of the atonement as well. Perrone admits the force of
those passages, but tries to escape it by saying that, if strictly under-
stood, they would call in question even the immaculate birth of Mary,
and her freedom from actual sin as well, which is contrary to the Catho-
lic faith ;a hence the Council of Trent has deprived these passages of all
force (omnem mm ademit) of application to the blessed Virgin ! This
earlier Fathers thought differently on the subject. Tertulliau calls Mary * a virgin as to a
man, but not a virgin as to birth' (non virgo, quantum a partu) ; and Epiphanius speaks of
Christ as * opening the mother's womb' (dvoiyuv fjLrjrpav fja^Tpos). See my History of tfa
Christian Church, Vol. II. p. 417.
1 L. c. p. 27C. In the same manner he disposes of the innumerable patristic passages whick
assert the universal sinfulness of men, and make Christ the only exception.
THE CREEDS OK CHRISTENDOM.
is putting tradition above and against the Word of the holy and om-
niscient God, and amounts to a concession that the dogma is extra-
scriptural and anti-scriptural Unfortunately for Koine, Mary herself has
made the application; for she calls God her Saviour (Luke i. 47: lm
r$ &(£ r$ wTYipt /«w), and thereby includes herself in the number of
the redeemed. With this corresponds also the proper meaning of the
predicate applied to her by the angel, Luke i. 28, K^apir^dufi, highly
favored, endued with grace (die begnadigte), the one who received,
and therefore needed, grace (non ut mater gratia, sed ut ftia g ratios,
as Bengel well observes) ; comp. ver. 30, tvptg \apiv irapa r$ St^, thou
hast found grace with God; and Eph. i. 6, lyapiruvtv r/juac>/£# bestowed
grace upon us. But the Vulgate changed the passive moaning into the
active : gratia plena, full of grace, and thus furnished a spurious argu-
ment for an error.
Nothing can be more truthful, chaste, delicate, and in keeping with
womanly humility and modesty than both the words and the mleiico of
the canonical Gospels concerning the blessed among women, whom yet
our Lord himself, in prophetic foresight and warning against future
Mariolatry, placed on a level with other disciples ; emphatically asserting
that there is a still higher blessedness of spiritual kinship than that of
carnal consanguinity. Great is the glory of Mary— -the mother of Je-
sus, the ideal of womanhood, the type of purity, obedience, meekness,
and humility — but greater, infinitely greater is the glory of Christ —
the perfect God-man — < the glory of the only-begotten of the Father,
full of grace (ir\{)pnG xapirog, not K^apiT^fjiivog) arl^ °^ truth,3
2. The dogma of the sinlessness of Mary is also uneatholie. It
lacks every one of the three marks of true catholicity, according to
the canon of Vincentius Lirinensis, which is professedly recognized by
Rome herself (the semper, the ubiyue, and the ah omnibus), and instead
of a c unanimous consent5 of the Fathers in its favor, there is a unani-
mous silence, or even protest, of the Fathers against it* For more
than ten centuries after the Apostles it was not dreamed of, and when
first broached as a pious opinion, it was strenuously opposed, and con-
tinued to be opposed till 1854 by many of the greatest Bainta and
divines of the Roman Church, including St. Bernard and St. Thomas
Aquinas, and several Popes.
The ante-Nicene Fathers, far from teaching that Mary was free from
§ 29. THE ARGUMENT FOR THK IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. Htf
hereditary sin, do not even expressly exempt her from actual sin, cer-
tainly not from womanly weakness and frailty. Irenseus (d. 202), who
first suggested the fruitful parallel of Eve as the mother of disobedi-
ence, and Mary as the mother of obedience (not justified by the true
Scripture parallel between Adam and Christ), and thus prepared the
way for a false Mariology, does yet not hesitate to charge Mary with
' unseasonable haste' or < urgency,' which the Lord had to rebuke at the
wedding of Oana (John ii. 4) j1 and even Ohrysostom, at the close of the
fourth century, ventured to say that she was immoderately ambitious,
and wanting in proper regard for the glory of Christ on that occa-
sion.2 The last charge is hardly just, for in the words, ' Whatsoever
he saith unto you, do it,' she shows the true spirit of obedience and
absolute trust in her Divine Son. Tertullian implicates her in the un-
belief of the brethren of Jesus.3 Origen thinks that she took offense,
Tike the Apostles, at our Lord's sufferings, else c he did not die for her
sins ;' and, according to Basil, she, too, ' wavered at the time of the cru-
cifixion.' Gregory of Nazianzus, and John of Damascus, the last of
the great Greek Fathers, teach that she was sanctified by the Holy
Ghost ; which has no meaning for a sinless being.
The first traces of the Romish Mariolatry and Mariology are found
in the apocryphal Gospels of Gnostic and Ebionitic urigin.4 In marked
contrast with the canonical Gospels, they decorate the life of Mary
with marvelous fables, most of which have passed into the Eoman
Church, and some also into the Mohammedan Koran and its commen-
taries.5
1 Iren, Adv. hcer. iii. c. 16, § 7: Dominus^repellens intempestivamfestinationem^ dixit: ' Quid
mihi et tibi est, mutter!'
a Chrys. Horn. XXL al XX. in Joh. Opera, ed. Bened. Tom. VJIL p. 122. Compare his
Horn, in Matth. XLIV. al. XLV., where he speaks of Mary's ambition (0i\cmjum) and
thoughtlessness (Mvoia), when she desired to speak with Christ while he yet talked to th«
people (Matt. xii. 46 sqq.).
3 De carne Gkristi, c. 7 : Fratres Domini nan crediderant in ilium. Mater wgue non de-
monstratur adhcesisse itti^ cum Marthce et Maria alioe, in commerdo ejus fregnententur.
* Compare the convenient digest of this apocryphal history of Mary and the holy family in
B. Hoffmann's Leben Jesu nach den Apocryphen, Leipz. 1851, pp. 5-117, and Tischendorf
JDe evanffeliorum aporryphorum origine et um, Hagae, 1 85 1 .
6 It must be remembered that Mohammed derived his defective knowledge of Christianity
from Gnostic and other heretical sources. Gibbon and Stanley trace the -Immaculate Con-
ception directly to the Koran, III. pp. 31, 37 (RodwelTs translation, p. 490), where it is said
of Mary : * Remember when the angel said : " Mary, verily has God Chosen thee, and puri-
fied thee, and chosen thee above the women of the world " '
118 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Mariolatry preceded the Romish Mariology. Each successive step
in the excessive veneration (hyperdulia) of the Virgin, and oach fes-
tival memorializing a certain event in her life, was followed by a prog-
ress in the doctrine concerning Mary and her relation to Christ and
the believer. The theory only justified and explained a practice al-
ready existing.
The Mariology of the Roman Catholic Church has passed through
three stages: the perpetual virginity of Mary, her freedom from actual
sin, and her freedom from hereditary sin.
This progress in Mariolatry is strikingly reflected in the history of
Christian art. 'The first pictures of the early Christian agos simply
represent the woman. Efy-and-by we find outlines of the mother and
the child. In an after-age the Son is sitting upon a throne, with the
mother crowned, but sitting as yet below him. In an age still later,
the crowned mother on a level with the Son. Later still, the mother
on a throne above the Son. And lastly, a Romish picture represent*
the eternal Son in wrath, about to destroy the earth, and the Virgin
Intercessor interposing, pleading, by significant attitude, her maternal
rights, and redeeming the world from his vengeance. Such was, in
fact, the progress of Virgin-worship. First the woman reverenced for
the Son;s sake; then the woman reverenced above the Son, and adored/
[Pius IX., March 24, 1877, spoko of Mary as dwinarum potentiwima fitmritiatrfa Qmii-
arum. If possible, Loo XIII. in encyclicals on the rosary and othor deliverance**, and
Pius X., wont further in exalting Mary. Leo, Sept. 1, 1883, pronounced her 'the nafest
guide to reach the gracious hand of God,' and, Sept., 1891, affirmed that 'except through
the Mother, it is hardly possible for any one to roach Christ.' On the fiftieth unnivorHiiry
of the dogma of the immaculate conception, Oct. 17, 1004, Pius X. mado aHloimdmg UHO
of the Old Testament to substantiate her alleged virtues. Galling her the HpotiHe of the
Holy Ghost, he announced that ' already Adam saw her in the distance as the doHtroyor
of the serpent's head, and at the sight of her dried up his tears over the curse which had
struck him'; Noah recalled her as ho was preparing the ark; Abraham was ontopped from
sacrificing his son as he thought of her; Jacob saw her in the ladder on which tho augelH
ascended and descended; Moses looked up to her at tho burning bush; etc. HUH invoked
her aid as the 'glorious helper against all heresies/ as Loo XIII. before had acclaimed
her 'the glorious victor over all heretics,' and Pius XI. in his encyclical on Church Union,
1928. Mary, in accordance with tho petition of tho Provincial Baltimore Council, 18'i:*i
has been made by papal decree tho 'heavenly guardian of tho United States,1 a« Plan XL
took occasion to remind tho world whon tho Peace Conference met in WaHhingtou, 1921.
And in his apostolic letter recommending tho Catholic University in Wtwhmgtou, ho made
the petition that 'the immaculate conception may bostow on all America the gifts of
wisdom and salvation/ Cardinal Gibbons, Faith of Our Fathers, p. 107, Biwhop OUmour
in his Bible History for Catholic Schools, pp. 11, 130, and also tho recent Italian version
of the Pentateuch, issued with papal approval, repeat tho false translation of Gen.
111:15, that Mary should bruise the serpent's head. — ED.]
§29. THE AEGUMENT FOB THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. 119
(1) The idea of the perpetual Virginity of Mary was already cur-
rent in the ante-Nicene age, and spread in close connection with the
ascetic overestimate of celibacy, and the rise of monasticism. It has
a powerful hold even over many Protestant minds, on grounds of re-
ligious propriety. Tertullian, who died about 220, still held that Mary
bore children to Joseph after the birth of Christ. But towards the
close of the fourth century the denial of her perpetual virginity (by
the Antidicomarianites, by Helvidius and Jovinian) was already treat-
ed as a profane and indecent heresy by Epiphanius in the Greek, and
Jerome in the Latin Church. Hence the hypothesis that the brethren
and sisters of Jesus, so often mentioned in the Gospels, were either
children of Joseph by a former marriage (Epiphanius), or only cousins
of Jesus (Jerome). On the other hand, however, the same Epiphanius
places among his eighty heresies the Mariolatry of the Collyridiance,
a company of women in Arabia, in the last part of the fourth century,
who sacrificed to Mary little cakes or loaves of bread (/coAXupt'c, hence
the name KoXXvpiSiavol), and paid her divine honor with festive rites
similar to those connected with the cult of Oybele, the maffna mater
de&m, in Arabia and Phrygia.
(2) The freedom of Mary from actual sin was first clearly taught in
the fifth century by Augustine and Pelagius, who, notwithstanding their
antagonism on the doctrines of sin and grace, agreed in this point, as
they did also in their high estimate of asceticism and monasticism.
Augustine, for the sake of Christ's honor, exempted Mary from willful
contact with actual sin ;a but he expressly included her in the fall of
Adam and its hereditary consequences.2 Pelagius, who denied heredit-
x />« natura et gratia, c. 86, § 42 (ed. Bened. Tom. X. p. 144) : 'JSxcepta sancta Virgine
Maria, I>B QUA PBOKTEK HONOKBM DOMINI NULLAM PRORSUS, CUM DB PECCATIS AGITUB,
HABEIU VOLO QU^BSSTIONBM . . . hoc ergo Virgine excepta, si omnes illos sanctos et sanctas
. . . congregare possemus et interrogare^ utrum essent sine peccato, quid fuisse responsuros
putamu$) utrum hoc quod iste [namely, Pelagius] dicit, an quod Joannes Apostolus (1 John
i. 8) V This is the only passage in Augustine which at all favors the Romanists ; and the
force even of this is partly broken by the parenthetical question : * Unde enim scimus quid ei
[JVtarifleJ plus gratice collatum fuerit ad vincendum omni ex parte peccatum quoe concipere ac
parere meruit, quern constat nullum habuisse peccatum? For how do we know what more of
f/race for the overcoming of sin in every respect was bestowed upon her who was found wor-
thy to conceive and give birth to him who, it is certain, was without sin ?' This implies
that in Mary sin was, if not a developed act, at least a power to be conquered.
8 Serrno 2 in Psalm. 34 : Maria ex Adam mortua propter peccatum, et caro Domini ex Ma-
ria mortua propter delenda peccata ; i. e., Mary died because of inherited sin, but Christ died
for the destruction of sin. In his last great work, Opus imperf, contra Julian. IV. c. 122
VOL. I.— T
120 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
ary sin, went further, and exempted Mary (with several other saints of
the Old Testament) from sin altogether ;l and, if he were not a con.
demned heretic, he might be quoted as the father of the modern
dogma.2 The view which came to prevail in the Catholic Church
was that Mary, though conceived in sin, like David and all men, \vaa
sanctified in the womb, like Jeremiah (i. 5) and John the Baptist (Luke
i. 15), and thus prepared to be the spotless receptacle for the Bon of
God and Saviour of mankind. Many, however, held that she wa« not
fully sanctified till she conceived the Saviour by the Holy Ghost. The
extravagant praise lavished on 'the Mother of God' by the Father**
after the defeat of Nestorianism (431), and the frequent epithets mont
holy and immaculate (wavayia, immaculata and wmiacit,l<xtiMlm<t)^
refer only to her spotless purity of character after her sanctification,
(ed. Bened. X. 1208), Augustine speaks of the grace of regeneration (gratia renttswndi) which
Mary experienced. He also says explicitly that Christ alone, was without sin, /> jwcat.
m&r. et remiss., II. c. 24, § 38 (ed. Bened. X. C I : Soum ///<', homofactus, nwncn* />w,v, ;>«<>
catum nullum habuit unquam, nee sumpsit carnem percati, quamvis de
ib. c. 35, § 57 (X. 69: Solus unus est qui sine peccato natus est in simiHtudwt,
sine peccato vixit inter aliena peccata, sine peccato mortuus t$t proper nostra ftefrttht) ; />«
Genesi ad lit., c. 18, § 32 ; c. 20, § 35. These and other passages of Augustine dourly prove,
to use the words of Perrone (1. c. pp. 42, 43 of the Germ, ed.), that 'thin holy Father
evidently teaches that Christ alone must he exempt from the general pollution of Bin; but that
the blessed Virgin, being conceived by the ordinary cohabitation of parents, partook of the
general stain, and her flesh, being descended from sin, was sinful flesh, winch Ohrint purified
by assuming it.1 The pupils of Augustine were even more explicit. One of thorn, Kulgon-
tius (De incarn. c. 15, § 29, also quoted by Perrone), says : * The flesh of Mary, which was
conceived in unrighteousness in a human way, was truly sinful flesh/
1 He says : ' Piety must confess that the mother of our Lord and Saviour was sinless' (as
quoted by Augustine, De nat. et gratia, c. 36, § 42: 'qvam dic.it sine pcwato conjiteri n«re«w esse
pietati'). Pelagius also excludes from sin Abel, Knoch, Melchisedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
Noah, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Klisha, Daniel, Ezekiel, John the Baptist, Deborah, Anna,
Judith, Esther, Elisabeth, and Joseph, the husband of Mary, who 'have not only not sinned,
but also lived a righteous life.' Julian, his ablest follower, objected to Augustine that, by hin
doctrine of hereditary sin and universal depravity, he handed even Mary over to the power
of the devil (ipsam Mariam diabolo nascendi c.onditione transcrilns) ; to which Aitguntinc re-
plied (Opus imperf. contra JuL 1. IV. c. 122): 'Non transscribiww diabolo Mariam con-
ditione nascendi, sed idea quid ipsa conditio solvitur gratia renascendi,' i. e., because thin con-
dition (of sinful birth) is solved or set aside by the grace of the second birth. When this
took place, he does not state.
3 It is characteristic that the Dominicans and Jansenists, who sympathised with the Au-
gustinian anthropology, opposed the Immaculate Conception ; while the Franciscans and
Jesuits, who advocated it, have a more or less decided inclination towards Pelagiantaing the-
ones, and reduce original sin to a loss of supernatural righteousness, i. c. , something merely
negative, so that it is much easier to make an exception in favor of Mary, The JoHtiite, tit
least, have an intense hatred of Augustinian views on sin and grace, and have shown it in the
JansenLst controversy.
§ 29. THE ARGUMENT FOR THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. 121
but not to her conception.1 The Greek Church goes as far as the
Roman in the practice of Mariolatry, but rejects the dogma of the
Immaculate Conception as subversive of the Incarnation.2
(3) The third step, which exempts Mary from original sin as well,
is of much later origin. It meets us first as a pious opinion in con-
nection with the festival of the Conception of Mary, which was fixed
upon Dec. 8, nine months before the older festival of her birth (cele-
brated Sept. 8). This festival was introduced by the Canons at Lyons
in France, Dec. 8, 1139, and gradually spread into England and other
countries. Although it was at first intended to be the festival of the
Conception of the immaculate Mary, it concealed the doctrine of the Im-
waculate Conception, since every ecclesiastical solemnity acknowledges
the sanctity of its object.
For this reason, Bernard of Clairvaux, ' the honey-flowing doctor' (doc-
tor melliftuus), and greatest saint of his age, who, by a voice mightier
than the Pope's, roused Europe to the second crusade, opposed the fes-
tival as a false honor to the royal Virgin, which she does not need, and
as an unauthorized innovation, which was the mother of temerity, the
sister of superstition, and the daughter of levity.3 He urged against
it that it was not sanctioned by the Eoman Church. He rejected the
opinion of the Immaculate Conception of Mary as contrary to tradition
and derogatory to the dignity of Christ, the only sinless being, and
asked the Canons of Lyons the pertinent question, ' "Whence they dis-
covered such a hidden fact ? On the same ground they might appoint
festivals for the conception of the parents, grandparents, and great-
grandparents of Mary, and so on without end.'4 It does not diminish,
but rather increases (for the Romish stand-point) the weight of his pro-
test, that he was himself an enthusiastic eulogist of Mary, and a believer
1 The predicate immaculate was sometimes applied to other holy virgins, e. g., to S. Cath-
arine of Siena, who is spoken of as la iinmaculata verging in a decree of that city as late as
14G2. See Hase, 1. c. p. 386.
9 See A. V. MOURAVJBFF on the dogma, in NEALB'S Voices from the J&ast, 1859, pp. 117-
155.
* * Virgo regiafako non eget honore, veris cumulata konorum titulis. . . . Non est hoc Vir-
ffinem honor are sed honori detraher. . . . Prcesumpta novitas mater temeritatis, soror supersti*
tionis, Jllia levitatis. ' See his JBpistola 174, ad Canonicos Lugdunenses, De conceptions S. Mar.
(Op. ed. Migne, I. pp. 332-386). Comp. also Bernard's Sermo 78 in Cant., Op.Vol. II. pp. 1160,
H62.
* . . . * et sic tenderetw in infinitum, etfestorum non esset numerus' (Ep. 174, p. 334 sq.).
122 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
in her sinless birth. He pnt her in this respect on a par with Jeremiah
and John the Baptist.1
The same ground was taken substantially by the greatest schoolmen
of the Middle Ages till the beginning of the fourteenth century: An-
selm of Canterbury (d. 1109), who closely followed Augustine;3 Peter
the Lombard, 'the Master of Sentences' (d. 1161); Alexander of Hales,
' the irrefragable doctor' (d. 1245) ; St. Bonaventura, < the seraphic doc-
tor' (d. 1274); Albertus Magnus, 'the wonderful doctor' (d. 1280);
St. Thomas Aquinas, 'the angelic doctor' (d. 1274), and the very cham-
pion of orthodoxy, followed by the whole school of Thomints and the
order of the Dominicans. St. Thomas taught that Mary was conceived
from sinful flesh in the ordinary way, secundwtb carnis con,cupi$cen-
tiam ex commixtione mar-is, and was sanctified in the womb after the
infusion of the soul (which is called tiie passive conception) ; for other-
wise she would not have needed the redemption of Christ, and so Christ
would not be the Saviour of all men. lie distinguishes, however,
three grades in the sanctification of the Blessed Virgin : first, the mnc-
tificatio in utero, by which she was freed from the original guilt (cntjw
originaUs) ; secondly, the sanctifieatio in oonceptu Domini, when the
Holy Ghost overshadowed her, whereby she was totally purged (totalitvr
mundata} from the fuel or incentive to sin (fwnwpeccatfy and, thirdly,
the sanctificatio in morte, by which she was freed from all consequenccH
of sin (liberata ab omni miseria). Of the festival of the Conception, he
says that it was not observed, but tolerated by the Church of Home, and,
like the festival of the Assumption, was not to be entirely rejected (n<ni
totaUter r&probandd)? The University of Paris, which during the Mid-
1 ''Si igitur ante conceptum sui sanctific.ari minime potuit, quoniam non erat; s?d ntc in ipno
quidem conceptu, propter peccatum quodinerat: restat ut post conccptum in uterojam ejcisfcjns
sanctificationem accepisse credatur, quota excluso pecc.ato sanctamfecerit nativitutt>mt non tamen
et conceptionem* (1. c. p. 336).
9 Anselm, who is sometimes wrongly quoted on the other side, says, Our £)eus Homo, H. 1 0
(Qp. ed. Migne, I, p. 416) : ' Virgo ipsa . . . e$t in iniquitatibus concept^ et in pewatis con-
cepit earn mater ejus, et cum originali pecr.ato nata est, quoniam et ipsa in Adam pcccavit, in
quo omnes peccaverunt.1 To these words of Boso, Anselm replies that * Christ, though taken
from the sinful mass (de massa peccatrice assumptus), had no sin.' Then ho speaks of Mnrv
twice as being purified from sin (mundata a pecc.atis) by the future death of Christ (c. 1<J,
17). His pupil and biographer, Badmer, in his book De excellent, beatw Viry. Maritr, c. &
(Ans. Op. ed. Migne, II. pp. 560-62), says that the blessed Virgin was freed from all remain-
ing stains of hereditary and actual sin when she consented to the announcement of the mystery
of the Incarnation by the angel.' Quoted also by Perrone, pp. 47-40.
3 Summa Theologice, Pt. III. Qu. 27 (De sanctijicatione B, F*>^,)» Art. 1-5 ; in IMtr. /.
§ 29. THE ARGUMENT FOR THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. 123
die Ages was regarded as the third power in Europe, gave the weight
of its authority for a long time to the doctrine of the Maculate Concep-
tion. Even seven Popes are quoted on the same side, and among them
three of the greatest, viz., Leo I. (who says that Christ alone was free
from original sin, and that Mary obtained her purification through her
conception of Christ), Gregory L, and Innocent III.1
But a change in favor of the opposite view was brought about, in the
beginning of the fourteenth century, by Duns Scotus, f the subtle doctor'
(d. 1308), who attacked the system of St. Thomas and the Augustinian
doctrine of original sin, who delighted in the most abstruse questions and
the most intricate problems, to show the skill of his acute dialectics, and
who could twist a disagreeable text into its opposite meaning. He was
the first schoolman of distinction who advocated the Immaculate Con-
ception, first at Oxford, though very cautiously, as a possible and prob-
able fact.2 lie refuted, according to a doubtful tradition, the opposite
theory, in a public disputation at Paris, with no less than two hundred
arguments, and converted the University to his view.3 At all events, he
made it a distinctive tenet of his order.
Henceforward the Immaculate Conception became an apple of dis-
Sentent. Dist. 44, Qu. 1, Art. 3. Nevertheless, Pen-one (pp. 231 sqq.) thinks that St. Ber-
nard and St. Thomas are not in the way of a definition of the new dogma, 'because they
wrote at a time when this view was not yet made quite clear, and because they lacked the
principal support, which subsequently came to its aid ; hence they must in this case be re-
garded as prirate teachers, propounding their own particular opinions, but not as witnesses
of the traditional meaning of the Church.' He then goes on to charge these doctors with
comparative ignorance of previous Church history. This may be true, but does not help the
matter ; since the fuller knowledge of the Fathers in modern times reveals a still wider dis-
sent from the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
1 The other Popes, who taught that Mary was conceived in sin, are Gelasius I., Innocent
V., John XXII., and Clement VI. (d. 1352). The proof is furnished by the Jansenist Lau-
noy, Prescriptions, Opera I. pp. 17 sqq,, who also shows that the early Franciscans, and even
Loyola and the early Jesuits, denied the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Perrone calls him
an 'irreligious innovator' (p. JU), and an 'impudent liar' (p. 161), but does not refute his
arguments, and evades the force of his quotations from Leo, Gelasius, and Gregory by the
futile remark that they would prove too much, viz., that Mary was even born in sin, and not
purified before the Incarnation, which would be impious !
3 Duns Scotus, Opera, Lugd. 1639, Tom. VII. Pt. I. pp. 01-100. One of his arguments of
probability is that, as God blots out original sin by baptism every day, he can as well do it in
the moment of conception. Compare Perrone, pp. 18 sqq.
3 Related by Wadding, in his Annal Minorum, Lugd. 1635, Tom. III. p. 37, but rejected by
Natalia Alexander, in his Chivrch History , as a fiction, and doubted even by Perrone (p. 163),
who says, however, that Duns Scotus refuted all the arguments of his opponents ' in a truly
astounding manner,'
124 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
cord between rival schools of Thomists and Scotists, and the rival
orders of the Dominicans and Franciscans. They charged each other
with heresy, and even with mortal sin for holding the one view or the
other. Visions, marvelous fictions, weeping pictures of Mary, and let-
ters from heaven were called in to help the argument for or against a
fact which no human being, not even Mary herself, can know without
a divine revelation. Four Dominicans, who were discovered in a pious
fraud against the Franciscan doctrine, were burned, by order of a papal
court, in Berne, on the eve of the Beformation. The Swedish prophet-
ess, StBirgitte, was assured in a vision by the Mother of God that she
was conceived without sin ; while St. Catharine of Siena prophesied
for the Dominicans that Mary was sanctified in the third hour after
her conception. So near came the contending parties that the differ-
ence, though very important as a question of principle, wan practically
narrowed down to a question of a few hours. The Franciscan view
gradually gained ground. The University of Paris, the Spanish nation,
and the Council of Basle (1439) favored it. Pope Sixtus IV., himself
a Franciscan, gave his sanction and blessing to the festival of the Im-
maculate Conception, but threatened with excommunication all those
of 'both parties who branded the one or the other doctrine as a borcBy
and mortal sin, since the Roman Church had not yet decided the ques-
tion (1476 and 1483).
The Council of Trent (June 17, 1546) confirmed this neutral posi-
tion, but with a leaning to the Franciscan side, by adding to the, dogma
, on original sin the caution that it was not intended c to comprehend in
this decree the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary.51 Pius V.( 1570),
a Dominican, condemned Baius (De Bay, Professor at Louvuin, and a
forerunner of the Jansenists), who held that Mary had actual as well as
original sin ; but soon afterwards he ordered that the discussion of this
delicate question should be confined to scholars in the Latin tongue, and
not be brought to the pulpit or among the people. In the mean time
the Franciscan doctrine was taken up and advocated with great &eal
and energy by the Jesuits. At first they felt their way cautiously
1 SessioV. : 'Declarat S. Synodus, non esse SU<B intentionis* comprefiendere in hoc
ubi de peccato originaU agitur, beatam et immacufatam Virginevn Mariam, £>ei
sed observandas esse constitutiones felicis recordationis Sixti PapwIV. sub panis in eis con*
stitutionibus contentis, quas innovat.'
$29. THE ARGUMENT KOK THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. 123
Bellarmin declared the Immaculate Conception to be a pious and prob-
able opinion, more probable than the opposite. In 1593 the fifth gen-
eral assembly of the order directed its teachers to depart from St.
Thomas in this article, and to defend the doctrine of Scotus, c which
was then more common and more accepted among theologians.' It is
chiefly through their influence that it gained ground more and more,
yet under constant opposition. Paul V. (1616) still left both parties the
liberty to advocate their opinion ; but a decree of the Congregation of
the Holy Inquisition and Gregory XV. (1622) prohibited the publication
of the doctrine that Mary was conceived in sin, and removed from the
liturgy the word sanctffication with reference to Mary. Then a new
controversy arose as to the meaning of the term immaculate; whether
it referred to the Virgin or to her conception ? To make an end to
all dispute, Alexander VII., urged on by the King of Spain, issued a
constitution, Dec. 8, 1661, which recommends the Immaculate Concep-
tion, defining it almost in the identical words of the dogma of Pius IX.1
Nothing was left but the additional declaration that belief in this doc-
trine was necessary to salvation. 'From this time,' says Perrone,2 * every
controversy and opposition to the mystery ceased, and the doctrine of
the Immaculate Conception attained to full and quiet possession in the
whole Catholic Church. No sincere Catholic ventured hereafter to
utter even a sound against it, with the exception of some irreligious
innovators, among whom Launoy occiipies the first place, and, in these
last years, Geoi'ge Hermes/ Thus he disposes of the powerful protest
of Launoy, issued in 1676, fifteen years after the bull of Alexander
VII., with irrefragable testimonies of Fathers and Popes; to which
may be added the anonymous treatise 'Against Superstition] written
by Muratori, 1741, one of the most learned antiquarians and historians
of the Eoman Church. But Jansenism was crushed ; Jesuitism, though
suppressed for a while, was restored to greater power; Ultramontanism
and Papal Absolutism made headway over the decay of independent
1 'Ejus (sc. j&farfa),' says Alexander VII., in the bull Sollicitudo Omnium Ecclesiarum
(Bullar. Rom. ed. Coquelines, Tom. VI. p. 182), 'animam in primo instanti creationis atque
infusionis in corpus fuisse speciali Dei gratia et priviUgio, intuitu meritorum Christi, ejus FUH,
humani generis Redemptoris^ a macula peccati originalis prceservatam immunem.' Compare
the decree of Pius IX. p. 1 10, which substitutes suce conceptions for creationis atque infusionis
(animce) in corpus, and ab omni originalis culpa lobe for a macula peccati originalis.
9 L. c. p. 33.
126 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM,
learning and research ; the voice of the ablest remaining Catholic schol-
ars was unheeded ; the submissiveness of the Bishops, and the ignorance,
superstition, and indifference of the people united in securing the tri-
umph of the dogma.
3. The only dogmatic argument adduced is that of congruity or fit-
ness, in view of the peculiar relations which Mary sustains to the per-
sons of the Holy Trinity. Being eternally chosen by the Father to be
cthe bride of the Holy Ghost,' and 'the mother of the Son of God,' it
was eminently proper that, from the very beginning of her existence,
she should be entirely exempt from contact with sin and the dominion
of Satan.1
To this it is sufficient to answer that the Word of God is the highest
and only infallible standard of religious propriety ; and this standard
concludes all men under the power of sin and death, with the only
exception of the God-man, the sinless Redeemer of the fallen race.
Besides, the argument of congruity can at best only prove the possibil-
ity of a fact, not the fact itself. And, finally, it would prove too much
in this case ; for, if propriety demands a sinless mother for a sinless
Son, it demands also (as St. Bernard suggested) a sinless grandmother,
great-grandmother, and an unbroken chain of sinless ancestors to the
beginning of the race.
On the other hand, the new dogma, viewed even from the stand-point
of the Roman Catholic system, involves contradictory elements.
In the first place, it is inconsistent with any proper view of original
sin, no matter whether we adopt the theory of traducianism, or that of
creationism (which prevails among Roman divines), or that of pro-
existence. The bull of 1854 speaks indefinitely of the ' conception' of
Mary. But Roman divines usually distinguish between the active con-
ception, i. e., the marital act by which the seed of the body is formed by
the agency of the parents, and tlie passive conception, i. e., the infusion
of the soul into the body by a creative act of God (according to the
theory of creationism).2 The meaning of the new dogma is that Mary,
by a special grace and privilege, was exempt from original sin in her
1 Perrone, ch. xiv. pp. 102 sqq.
8 As to the time of the creation and infusion of the soul, whether it took place simultane-
ously with the generation of the body, or on the fortieth day (as was formerly supposed), there-
is no fixed opinion among Koman divines.
§ 29. THE ARGUMENT FOR THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. 127
passive conception, that is, in that moment when her soul was created
by God for the animation of her body.1 Now original sin must come
either from the body, or from the soul, or from both combined. If
from the body, then Mary must have inherited it from her parents,
since the dogma does not exclude these from sin; if from the soul,
then God, who creates the soul? is the author of sin, which is blas-
phemous ; if from both, then we have a combination of both these in-
extricable difficulties. Nor is the matter materially relieved if we
take the superficial semi-Pelagian view of hereditary sin, which makes
it a mere privation or defect, namely, the absence of the supernatural
endowment of original righteousness and holiness (the similitudo JDei,
as distinct from the imago JDei), instead of a positive disorder and sin-
ful disposition.2 For even in this case the same dilemma returns, that
this original defect must have been there from the parents, or must be
ordinarily derived from God, as the author of the soul, which alone can
be said to possess or to lose righteousness and holiness. Eome mi>st
either deny original sin altogether (as Pelagius did), or take the further
step of making the Immaculate Conception of Mary a strictly miracu-
lous event, like the conception of Christ by the Holy Ghost, sine virih
complexu and sine concitpiseentia carnis.
Secondly, the dogma, by exempting Mary from original sin in conse-
quence of the merits of Christ? virtually puts her under the power of
sin ; for the merits of Christ are only for sinners, and have no bearing
upon sinless beings. Perrone, following Bellarmin, virtually concedes
this difficulty, and vainly tries to escape it by an unmeaning figure, that
Mary was delivered from prison before she was put into it, or that her
debt was paid which she never contracted !
Finally, the dogma is inconsistent with the Vatican decree of Papal
Infallibility. The hidden fact of Mary's Immaculate Conception must,
in the nature of the eaae, be a matter of divine omniscience and di-
1 So the matter as explained by Perrone at the beginning of his Treatise, pp. 1-4; and this
accords with the bull of Alexander VII. (in primo instanti creationis a,tgue infusionis in cor-
pus, etc.)? sea p. 125.
3 The profounder schoolmen, however, represented by St. Thomas, had a deeper view of
original sin, nearer to that of Augustine and the Eeformers. The same is true of Mohler,
who speaks of a * deep vinneimion of the soul in a.U its powers,7 and a ' perverse tendency of
the will,' as a necessary consequence of the Fall.
3 . „ * intuitu meritorum Christi ,/esw, Sfdvatoris humani generis.'
THE CKEKDS Of ( '
vine revelation, and is so declared in the papal decree.1 Now it must
have been revealed to the mind of Pius IX., or not. If not, he had
no right, in the absence of Scripture proof, and the express dissent nf
the Fathers and the greatest schoolmen, to declare the Immaculate
Conception a divinely revealed fact and doctrine. If it was revealed
to him, he had no need of first consulting all the Bishops of the .Roman
Church, and waiting several years for their opinion on the subject. Or
if this consultation was the necessary medium of such revelation, then
fee is not in himself infallible, and has no authority to define and pro-
claim any dogma of faith without the advice and consent of the uni-
versal Episcopate.
§ 30. THE PAPAL SYLLABUS, AD. 1861
Literature.
The Encydica and Syllabus of Dec. 8, 1864, are published in Pii IX. Kpistola encyd., etc., Rcgensk
1865 ; in OffitielU Actentst&eke zu dew, v. Pius fJT. nach Rom. leritfenen Oskuw. Ctotutl, Berlin, 1KGO, pp. l-85»,
(Q A eta et Decreta S. cecuni. Cone. Vatic. Frib, 1871, Pt. I. pp. 1-21, etc.
J. TOBI (R. 0.) : Vorlemngen fiber den, Syllabus errorum derpiipntl. j&nq/clfai, W ion, 1806 (251 pp.).
J. HBBGKJSBOTHRR (R. C.) : Die Irrth&mer der Neuztit gerichtet durck den Ml. M«7if, 1H(J5,
Bekuohtung der p&pstl when JEncyclica v. 8 Deo. 1864, und das Verzeiohniss der vnodernen IrrthRmtr (by a
ft.O.),-Leipz.l865.
Die Encyclica Papat Pius IX. vom 8 Dee. 1804. Stimmen aus Maria-Ijaach (R. C.), Frelb. 1800-60. (By
Riess, Schneemann, aud others.)
Der Papst und die modernen Ideen (R. C.), several nnmberp, Wien, 1805-OT. LBy Or>. BoiiRAPKit, a Jesuit.]
C. PRONima (Prof, of the Free Theol. Sem. at Geneva, 1873) r La liberti rdigieuse et k X//Z2abu«, ( Join^vo, 1870.
W. B. QLADSTONB: The Vatican Decrees ; a Political Expostulation, London and New York, 1874; Vati~
ftnism, 1875. Com p. the Roman Catholic Replies of Monsign. CAVRL, J, II. NICWMAN, aud Archbishop
ftAKNiNa in defense of the Vatican Decrees ; see below, $ 31.
On the 8th of December, 1864-, just ten years after the proclamation
of the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary, Pope Pius IX. isfttied an en-
cyclical letter c Quanta cura? denouncing certain dangerous heresies
and errors of the age, which threatened to undermine the foundations
of the Catholic religion and of civil society, and exhorting the Bishops
to counteract these errors, and to teach that ' kingdoms rest on the
foundation of the Catholic faith ;' that it is the chief duty of civil gov-
ernment ' to protect the Church ;' that ' nothing is more advantageous
and glorious for rulers of States than to give free scope to the Catholic
Church, and not to allow any encroachment upon her liberty.52 In
the same letter the Pope offers to all the faithful a complete in-
1 ... 'dofitrinam . . . esse a Deo revel atamj etc.
3 These and similar sentences are inserted from letters of mediaeval Popes, who from their
theocratic stand-point claimed supreme jurisdiction over the states and princes of Europe.
Popes, like the Stuarts and the Bourbons, never forget and never learn any thing*
§ 30. THE PAPAL SYLLABUS, 1864. 129
dulgence for one month during the year 1S65,1 and expresses, in con-
clusion, his unbounded confidence in the intercession of the immacu-
late and most holy Mother of God, who has destroyed all the heresies
in the whole world, and who, being seated as queen at the right hand
of her only begotten Son, can secure any thing she asks from him.2
To this characteristic Encyclical is added the so-called SYLLABUS,
i. e., a catalogue of eighty errors of the age, which had been previously
pointed out by Pius IX. in Oonsistorial Allocutions, Encyclical and
other Apostolic Letters, but are here conveniently brought together,
and were transmitted by Cardinal Antonelli to all the Bishops of the
Roman Catholic Church.
This extraordinary document presents a strange mixture of truth and
error. It is a protest against atheism, materialism, and other forms of
infidelity which every Christian must abhor ; but it is also a declara-
tion of war against modern civilization and the course of history for
the last three hundred years. Like the papal bulls against the Jansen-
ists, it is purely negative, but it implies the assertion of doctrines the
very opposite to those which are rejected as errors.3 It expressly con-
demns religious and civil liberty, the separation of Church and State ;
and indirectly it asserts the Infallibility of the Pope, the exclusive
right of Romanism to recognition by the State, the unlawfulness of all
non-Catholic religions, the complete independence of the Roman hier-
archy from the civil government (yet without allowing a separation),
the power of the Church to coerce and enforce, and its supreme control
over public education, science, and literature.
The number of errors was no doubt suggested by the example of
Epiphanius, the venerable father of heresy-hunters (d. 403), who, in
1 ... 'plenariam indulgentiam ad instar jubilwi concedimus intra unius tantum mensis spa*
tium usque ad totwn futurum annum 1805 et non ultra.1
* * Quo verofacilius Deus Nostris,Vestrisque, et omnium Jldelium precibus, votisque annuat,
cum omni Jiducia deprecatricem apud Eum adhibeamus Immaculatam Sanctissimamque Deipa-*
ram Virginem Mariam, qua cunclas hereses interemit in universo mundo, quceque omnium
nostrum amantissima Mater " tota suavis est . . . ac plena misericordics . . . omnibus sese
exorabilem, omnibus clementissimam prcebet, omnium nec,essitates amplissimo quodam miseratur
ajfectu" [quoted from St. Bernard], atque utpote Regina adstans a dextris Unigeniti Filii Sui,
Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, in vestitu deaurato circumamicta varietate, nihil est quod ab Eo
impetrare non vateat. Suffragia quoque petamus Beatissimi Petri Apostolorum Principis, et
Coapostoli ejus Pauli, omniumque Sanctorum Ccelitum, quifactijam amid Dei pervenerunt
ad codestia regna, et coronati possident palmam, ac de sua immortalitate securi, de nostra sunt
salute solliciti.'
3 .A learned Jesuit, Clemens Schrader, translated them into a positive form.
130 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
his Panarion, or Medicine- Chest, furnishes antidotes for the poison of
no less than eighty heresies (including twenty before Christ), probably
with a mystic reference to the octoginta concubinat in the Song of
Solomon (vi. 8).
The Pope divides the eighty errors of the nineteenth century into
ten sections, as follows :
I. PANTHEISM, NATURALISM, and ABSOLUTE RATIONALISM, No. 1-7.
Under this head are condemned the following errors :
(1.) The denial of the existence of God.
(2.) The denial of his revelation.
(3 and 4.) The sufficiency of human reason to enlighten and to guide
men.
(5.) Divine revelation is imperfect, and subject to indefinite progress.
(6.) The Christian faith contradicts human reason, and is an obstacle
to progress.
(7.) The prophecies and miracles of the Bible are poetic fictions, and
Jesus himself is a myth.1
II. MODERATE KATIONALISM, No. 8-14.
Among these errors are :
(12.) The decrees of the Eoman See hinder the progress of science.
(13.) The scholastic method of theology is unsuitod to our age.2
(14.) Philosophy must be treated without regard to revelation.
III. INBIFFEJRBNTISM, LATITUDTNABIANISM, No, 15-18.
(15.) Every man may embrace and profess that religion which com-
mends itself to his reason.3
(16.) Men may be saved under any religion.*
(17.) We may at least be hopeful concerning the eternal salvation of
all non-Catholics.6
1 'Jesus Christus est mythica jftctio.' I am not aware that any sane infidel has over gone
so far. Strauss and Renan resolve the miracles of the gospel history into myths or legends,
but admit the historical existence and extraordinary character of Jesus, as the greatest re-
ligious genius who ever lived.
8 No. 13. * MetJiodus et jnincipict, quibus antiqid Doc.tores scholastic* tfieofaffittm awtluemntj
temporum nostrorum necessitatibus scientiarumqua progressui minima congrmntS
3 No. 15. 'Liberum cuique homini est earn amplecti ac projiteri r*ligionwn, quam ratwnis
lumine quis ductus veram jwtaverit.1
4 No. 1C. 'Homines in cujusvis religionis cultu viam wteriux sctlutis reperire wtcrnmnque
salutem assequi possunt. '
* No. 17. Saltern bene sperandum est de ceterna illorum omnium salute, quiin vera Christi
Ecclesia nequaquam versantur.'
§30. THE PAPAL SYLLABUS, 1864. 131
(18.) Protestantism is only a different form of the same Christian
religion, in which we may please God as well as in the Catholic
Church.1
IV. SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, SECRET SOCIETIES, BIBLE SOCIETIES, CLER-
ICO-LIBERAL SOCIETIES.
Under this head there are no specifications, but the reader is referred
to previous Encyclicals of 1848, 1849, 1854, 1863, in which 'ejusmodi
pestes scepe gravissimisque wrborum formulis r&probantur? The
Bible Societies, therefore, are put on a par with socialism and com-
munism, as pestilential errors worthy of the severest reprobation !
V. Errors respecting the CHURCH and her EIGHTS.
Twenty errors (19-38), such as these : the Church is subject to the
State ; the Church has no right to exercise her authority without the
leave and assent of the State ; the Church has not the power to define
dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true
religion ; Roman Pontiffs and oecumenical Councils have exceeded
the limits of their power, usurped the rights of princes, and have
erred even in matters of faith and morals ;2 the Church has no power
to avail herself of force, or any temporal power, direct or indirect ;3
besides the inherent power of the Episcopate, there is another temporal
power conceded expressly or tacitly by the civil government, which
may be revoked by the same at its pleasure ; it does not exclusively
belong to the jurisdiction of the Church to direct the teaching of the-
ology ; nothing forbids a general council, or the will of the people, to
transfer the supreme Pontiff from Rome to some other city ; national
Churches, independent of the authority of the Roman Pontiff, may be
established ;4 the Roman Pontiffs have contributed to the Greek schism.5
VI. Errors concerning CIVIL SOCIETY, considered as well in itself as
in its relations to the Church. Seventeen errors (39-55).
1 No. 18. * Protestantismus non aliud e$t quam diver sa verce ejusdem christianm religionism
forma, in qua, wque ac in JEcclesia catholica Deo placere datum est.1
a No. 23. c Romani pontijices et concilia cecumenica a limitibus sues potestatis recesserunt*
jura prinnipUM usurparunt, atque etiam in rebus fidei et morum dejiniendis errarunt.'
3 No, 24. * EM/MIO, vis inferential potestatem non habet, negue potestatem ullam temporalem
directam rel indircctam. '
4 No. 37. * Tnstitui possunt nationals Ecclesia ab auctoritate Romani Pontificis subductce
planegue divisor,. '
8 No. 38. £ Divisioni ecclesice in orientalem atque occidentalem nimia RomanorutnPontificum
arbitria contulerunt.'
132 TUB CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
(M.) f Civil authority may meddle in things pertaining to religion,
mo-ials, and the spiritual government.3
(tl-5.) 'The whole government of public schools, in which the youth
_£ a Christian commonwealth is trained, with the exception of some
Episcopal seminaries, can and must be assigned to the civil authority.'1
(46.) c The method of study even in the seminaries of the clergy is
subject to the civil authority.'
(52.) i The lay government has the right to depose Bishops from the
exercise of pastoral functions, and is not bound to obey the "Roman
Pontiff in those things which pertain to the institution of bishoprics
and bishops.'
(55.) c The Church is to be separated from the State, and the State
from the Church.52
VII. Errors in NATURAL and CHRISTIAN ETHICS, No. 56-64.
Here among other things are condemned the principle of non-inter-
vention, and rebellion against legitimate princes.
VIII. Errors on CHRISTIAN MATRIMONY, No. 65-74.
Here the Pope condemns not only loose views on marriage and di-
vorce, but also civil marriage, and any theory which does not admit it
to be a sacrament.3
IX. Errors regarding the CIVIL PRINCIPALITY of the ROMAN PONTIFF,
No. 75, 76.
(75.) Concerning the compatibility of the temporal reign with the
spiritual, there is a difference of opinion among the sons of the Chris-
tian and Catholic Church.
(76.) The abrogation of the civil government of the Apostolic See
would be conducive to the liberty and welfare of the Church.
X. Errors referring to MODERN LIBERALISM, No. 77-80.
Under this head are condemned the principles of religious liberty as
1 No. 45. ' Totum scholarum publicarum regimen, in qmbus jupfittwt vhrWunw ntiwijus
Reipublicce instituitur, episcopalibus dumtaxat aeminariis aliqua ration? flwiyrffc, potnt ac,
debet attribui auctoritati drill,' etc. Compare Nos. 47 and 48. Ilenoo the irreeondlable
hostility of the Romish clergy to public schools, especially where the Protestant Hiblc i«
read.
3 No. 55. 'Ecclesia a Statu, Statusgue ab JSccksia sejungendus est.' Compare Alloc.>tr«r-
bissimum 27 Sept. 1852.
3 No. 73. ' Vi contrar.tus mere civilis potest inter Christianas c.onstare veri nominiit matri-
monium; falsumgue e$t, aut contractum matrimonii inter Christianos semper esse sacramen-
twn, aut nullum esse contractual, «» sacramentum evcludatur.'
§ 30. THE PAPAL SYLLABUS, 1864. 133
they have come to prevail in the most enlightened States of Christen-
dom. The Pope still holds that it is right to forbid and exclude all
religions but his own, where he has the power to do so (as he had and
exercised in Home before 1870) ; and he refuses to make any terms
witli modern civilization.1
The Syllabus, though resting solely on the authority of the Pope,
must be regarded as an integral portion of the Eoman Creed ; the
Pope having since been declared infallible in his official utterances.
The most objectionable as well as the least objectionable parts of it
have been formally sanctioned by the Vatican Council. The rest
may be similarly sanctioned hereafter. The Syllabus expresses the
genuine spirit of Popery, to which may be applied the dictum of
the General of the Jesuits : < Aut sit ut est, aut non sit.' It can not
change without destroying itself.
In the mean time the politico-ecclesiastical doctrines of the Syllabus,
together with the Infallibility decree, have provoked a new conflict be-
tween the Pope and the Emperor. Pius IX. looks upon the State with
the same proud contempt as Gregory VII. ' Persecution of the Church,5
he said after the recent expulsion of the Jesuits (1872), ' is folly : a little
stone [Dan. ii. 45] will break the colossus [of the new German em-
pire] to pieces.' But Bismarck, who is made of sterner stuff than
Henry IV., protests : ' We shall not go to Canossa.'
American Protestants and European Free Churchmen reject all in-
terference of the civil government with the liberty and internal affairs
of the Church as much as the Pope, but they do this on the basis of a
peaceful separation of Church and State, and an equality of all forms of
Christianity before the law; while the Syllabus claims absolute freedom
and independence exclusively for the Eoman hierarchy, and claims
this even in those countries where the State supports the Church, and
1 (77.) 'JKtate hac nostra non amplius expedit, religionem catholicam haberi tamquam mi-
cam status reRffionem, ceteris quibuscumque cultibus exclusis.1
(78.) lHinc laudabiliter in quibusdam catholic! nominis regionibus lege cautum est, ut ho-
minibus illuc immigmntibus liceat publicum proprii cujusque cultus exercitium haberi
(70.) ' Enimvero falsum est, civilem cujusque cultus libertatem, itemque plenam potestatem
omnibus attributam quaslibet opiniones cogitationesque palam publiceque manifestandi con-
due ere ad populorum mores animosque facilius corrumpendos ac indifferentisnd pestem propa-
gandam.'
(80.) 'Romanus Pontifex potest ac debet cum progressu, cum liberalismo et cum recenti
cirilitate sese reconciliare et componere.'
134 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
has therefore a right to a share in its government.
[The Syllabus of Pius IX. was substantially confirmed by Leo XIII.,
Nov. 1, 1885, June 1, 1889, and Feb. 1, 1890, and Pius XL in jxusccwli
gregis, 1907. It is pronounced infallible by Lehmkulil, Thcol. Afor., II.,
780, Straub, de ecdes., II., 398-402, and Loitner, Ildbuch. den kath.
KirchenrechtSj 2nd ed.; p. 15. Other documents pronounced by Lohni-
kuhl, IL, 726-88, infallible, are Leo X.'s bull against Luther, 1520,
Innocent X.'s against Jansen, Innocent XL;s against the Laxists, etc.
—ED.]
§ 31. THE VATICAN COUNCIL, 1870.
Literature.
I. WORKS PRKOKIUNO TUB GOUNOIL.
Offlcielle Actenstucke zu dem von Sr. Ueiligkeit dem Pa-pate Piutt /A', wrtc/t Rtmi berufenen Oefovmfnfahein
Conet'Z, Berlin, 1869 (pp. 189). This work contains the Pupal JEfiiicyclica of 1H04, and the various papal
letters and official documents preparatory to the Council, in Latin and Gorman.
Chronique concemcvnt le Prochain Concile. Tradwtion revue et apprountie, de la Clioiltd caftolica par In
correspondance de Rome, Vol. I. Avant le Concile. Rome, Deuxlome eel. 1809, fol. (pp. lt)SJ). Begins with
the Papal letter of June 26, 1807.
HENRY EI>\VAKI> MANNING (Archbishop of Westminster): The Centenary of 8t. Peter and the General
Council. A Pastoral Letter. London, 1807. The QUeumenical Council and the Infallibility of tht Roman
Pontiff. A Pastoral Letter. London, 1869. In favor of Infallibility.
0. II. A. PLANTIKR (Bishop of Nimes) : Sur les Coneilen generaicx d roccamon de celui que, Ha Ntt'tntete Pie
/X a convoqudpour le 8 decembre prochain, Ntmes et Paris, 1809. Tlie saino In Gorman : Weber die ulfyt •
meinen Kirchenversanwilungen, translated by Th. von Lamczan, Freiburg im BroiHgau, 1H09. InfalllbilfHt.
MAGR. VIOT. AUG. DKOHAMPS (Archbi«hop of Malines) : L'tnfatUtMliti ft le CtmHle fftn#r<ttt 2d cti., ParlH
et Malines, 1869. German translation : Die ffvfehlbarkeit den Pastes und das A Uffevnei'no Condi, JMlainv:,
1869. Strong InfallibiHst.
H. L. C. MABKT (Dean of the Theol. Faculty of Paris) : Du Concile gintrul et de. la paix reliyie,tiitet Parin,
1869, 2 vols. Against Infallibility. Has since recanted.
W. EMMANUEL FRRIUKBII VON KETTKLVB (Bishop of Maycnco) : Das Altymnrtw (Jow.il und ortrn JM'U-
tungf&r unsere Zeit, 4th ed. Mainz, 1 869. First against, now in favor of Infallibility.
Dr. JOSEPH FKSSLKR (Bishop of St. Pttlten and Secretary of the Vatican Council, d. 18W) : Das letzto und
das nachste A Hgemeine Concil, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1809.
F. DUPANLOUP (Bishop of Orleans): Lettre mr U futvr Concile Otifimifnlgur, in French, Gorman, and
other languages, 1869. The same on the Infallibility of the Pope. First against, then in favor of the now
dogma.
Der Pap$t und das Concil, Don JANUS, Leipzig, 1869 (pseudonymous). The nunio in Kiiglteh: The Po^e
and the Council, by JANUS, London, 1869. In opposition to the Jesuit programme of th« Council, from
the liberal (old) Catholic stand-point; probably the joint production of Profn. DOLUNGKU, WIUHDRIOII,
and H0BKB, of the University of Munich.
Dr. J. HICBGKNBOTURB (K. C.) : A nfa-Janu8t Freiburg im Breisgau, 1870. Also in English, by J* B. Ilo»
BBTSON, Dublin, 18TO.
Reform der R"<m. Kirche in ffaupt und Oliedern Aufgabe dea bevoratehmden R"wit Conrtltt, LoIps!.18(lU
Liberal Catholic.
FELIX BtrMGBNBB (Prot.) : Rome and the Council in the Nimteenth Century. TVantiZcitaf /row thelfytmeh,
with additions by the Autlwr. Edinb. 1870. (Conjectures as to what the Council will bo, to judge from the
Papal Syllabus and the past history of the Papacy.)
II. Krct'ORTS DURING THUS COTTNOIL.
The Civiltd catholica, of Rome, for 1869 and 1870. Chief organ of the Jesuits and TnfalllblllBts.
Louis VXUELLOT : Rome pendant le Concile, Paris, 1870, 2 vols. Collection of h$H correspondence to
his journal, V Univers, of Paris. Ultra-Iufnllibilist and utterly unscrupulous.
J. FmEi>Rion (Prof, of Church History in Munich, lib. Cath.) : Taflfbiteh wlhrtnd den VaticaniMhen Am-
cil* gef&hrt, Nfldlingen, 1871 ; 2d ed. 1872. A journal kept during the Council, and noting tho facto,
projects, and rumors as they came to the surface. The author, a colleague and intimate friend of JD61-
liuger, has since been excommunicated.
§ 31. THE VATICAN COUNCIL, 1870. 135
e : Letters from, Rtmie on the Council, first in the Angsb. Attgemeine Zeitung, anc" then in a sep«
anite volume, Munich, 18TO • also iu English, London, 1870 (pp. 856). Letters of three liberal Catholics,
of different nations, who had long resided in Rome, and, during the Council, communicated to each
other all the information they could gather from members of the Council, and sent their letters to a
friend in Germany for publication in the Augsburg General Gazette.
Compare against Quirinus: Dw Unwahrheiten for Romischen Brief e vom Concil in der Allg. Zeitung,
VON W. EMMANUEL FBKIHEBBN VON KKTTELBB (Bishop of Mayence), 1870.
Ce qui se passe au Concile. Dated April 10, 1870. Troisi&me ed. Paris, 1870. [By JULES GAILLABD.]
La, derniere heure du Concile, Paris, 1870. [By a member of the Council.] The last two works were
denounced as a calumny by the presiding Cardinals in the session, July 16, 1870.
Also the Beports during the Council in the Giornale di Roma, the Turin Vnitd catholica, the London
Times, the London (R. C.) Tablet, the Dublin Review, the New York Tribune, and other leading period-
icals.
III. THE ACTS AND PBOOEBDINGS OF TUB COUNCIL.
(1.) Roman Catholic (Infallibilist) Sources.
Acta et Deoreta sacrosancti et oscumenici Concilii Vaticani die 8 Dec. 1869 a 88. D. N. Pio IX. inehoatt.
Cum permisttione superiorum, Friburgi Brisgovise, 1871, in 2 Parts. The first part contains the Papal
Eucyclica with the Syllabus and the acts preparatory to the Council ; the second, the public acts of the
Council itself, with a list of the dioceses of the Roman Church and the members of the Vatican Council.
Actes et histoire du Concile o?cum6nique de Rome, premier du Vatican, ed. under the auspices of Victor
Frond) Paris, 1860 sqq. 6 vols. Includes extensive biographies of Pope Pius IX. and his Cardinals, etc.,
with portraits. Vol. VI. contains the Actes, decrets et documents reccuillis et mis en ordrepar M. Pelletier,
chanoino cP Orleans. Each vol. costs 100 francs.
Atti ufficialli del Concilio ecumenico, Turino, pp. 682 (? 1870).
Offlcielle Actenstftcke zu dem von Sr. Heiligkeit dem Papst Pius IX. nach Rom berufenen Oekumenischen
Concil, Zweite Sammlung, Berlin, 1870.
Das Oekumenische Concil. Stimmen aus Maria-Loach, Keue Folge. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1870. A se-
ries of discussions in defense of the Council by Jesuits (Florian Riess, and K. v. Weber).
HENRY EI>WATW> MANNING (R. C. Archbishop of Westminster) : Petri Privilegium. Three Pastoral Let-
ters, London, 1871. The True Story of the Vatican Council, London, 1877.
Bp. Jos. FJBSBLBB (Secretary of the Vatican Council) : Das Vaticanische Concil, dessen dussere Bedeutung
und innerer Verlauf, Wien, 1871.
EtroBN CEOOONI (Canon at Florence) : Geschichte der allg. Kirchenversammlung im Vatican. TransL from
the Italian by Dr. W. Molitor. Regensb. 1873 sqq. (Vol. I. contains only the history before the Council.)
The stenographic reports of the speeches of the Council are still locked up in the archives of the Vat-
ican*
(2.) Old Catholic (anti-Infallibilist).
Jon. FBIET>BIOII : Docwmenta ad ttlustrandwm Concilium Vaticanum anni 1870, Nordlingen, 1871, In 2
parts. Contains official and unofficial documents bearing on the Council and the various schemata de
fide, de ecclesia, etc. Compare his Tagebuch wdhrend des Vaticanischen Concils gefuhrt, above quoted.
By the same: Geschichte des Vaticanischen Concils, Bonn, 1877. Vol. I. (contains the preparatory history
to 1869); Vol. 11.1889.
JOH. FBIBDBIOU RITTICB VON SOUITLTB (Prof, of Canon Law in the University of Prague, now in Bonn) :
Das Vhfehlbarkeitsdecret vom 18 Mi 1870 . . . geprttft, Prag, 1871. Also, Die Macht der Mm. Pdpste uler
JFiirsten, Ldnder, VMker, Individuen, etc., Prag, Sd ed. 1871.
Stimmen aus derkatholiachen Kirche uber die Kirchenfragen der Gegenwart, Munchen,1870 sqq. 2 vols.
A series of discussions against the Vatican Council, by DOLLINGEB, HTJBEB, SOIIMITZ, FBIEDRIOH, REIN-
KENS, and JLIoTZL.
(3.) Protestant,
Dr. EMIT, FBtuDuimo (Prof, of Ecclesiastical Law in Leipzig) : Sammlung der Actenstticke zum ersten
VaticaMschen Concil, mit einem Grundriss der Geschichte desselben, Tubingen, 1872 (pp. 954). Very valu-
able ; contains all the important documents, and a full list of works on the Council.
TIIROD. FBOMMANN (Pnvatdocent in Berlin) : Geschichte und Kritik des Vaticanischen Concils von 1869
und 1870, Gotba, 1872 (pp. 529).
E. IDA PREBBKNBE (Kef. Pastor in Paris) : Le Concile du Vatican, son histoire et ses consequences politiques
et religieuses, Paris, 1H72. Also in German, by Fabarius, N(>rdlingen, 1872.
L. W. BAOON : An fnnide View of the Vatican Council, New York, 1872 (Amer. Tract Society). Contain*
a translation of Archbishop Kenrick's speech against Infallibility, with a sketch of the Council.
G. UULUORN : Das Vaticanische Concil ( Vermischte Vortrage). Stuttgart, 1875, pp. 235-850.
An extensive criticism on the Infallibility decree in the third edition of Dr. EASE'S Kandbuch der Prot.
estant. Polemik gegen die rfimisch-katholische Kirche, Leipz. 1871, pp. 155-200. Comp. pp. 24-37.
[The above are only the most important works of the large and increasing literature, historical, apol-
ogetic, and polemic, on the Vatican Council. A. Erlecke, in a pamphlet, Di.e Literatur des rom. Concilst
gives a list of over 200 books and pamphlets which appeared in Germany alone before 1871. Friedberg
.^tices 1041 writings on the subject till June 1872. Since then the Gladstone Expostulation on the po*
.iftical aspects of the Vatican Decrees, Loud. 1874, and his Vaticanism, 1875, have called forth a newspap«
and pamphlet war, and put Dr. J. II. Newman and Archbinhop "Manning on the defensive.}
Vor. I.—K
136 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
More than three hundred years after the close of the Council of
Trent, Pope Pius IX., who had proclaimed the new dogma of the
Immaculate Conception, who in the presence of five hundred Bishops had
celebrated the eighteenth centennial of the martyrdom of the Apostles
Peter and Paul, and who was permitted to survive not only the golden
wedding of his priesthood, but even — alone among his more than two
hundred and fifty predecessors — the silver wedding of his popedom
(thus falsifying the tradition cnon videbit annos PetrV\ resolved to
convoke a new oecumenical Council, which was to proclaim his own in-
fallibility in all matters of faith and discipline, and thus to put the
top-stone to the pyramid of the Roman hierarchy.
He first intimated his intention, June 26, 1867, in an Allocution to
five hundred Bishops who were assembled at the eighteenth centen-
ary of the martyrdom of St. Peter in Rome. The Bishops, in a most
humble and obsequious response, July 1, 1867, approved of his he-
roic courage, to employ, in his old age, an extreme measure for an
extreme danger, and predicted a new splendor of the Church, and a new
triumph of the kingdom of God.1 Whereupon the Pope announced to
them that he would convene the Council under the special auspices of
the immaculate Yirgin, who had crushed the serpent's head and was
mighty to destroy alone all the heresies of the world.2
1 'Summo igitur gauaioj said the five hundred Bishops, 'rephtus est animus noster, dum
sacrato ore Tuo intelleximus, tot inter prasentis temporis discriinina eo Te esw consilw, ut
lt maximum," prout aiebat inclitus Tuus prcedecessor Puvkts III. , "in maxi.ni$ m christi-
ancepericuUs remedium," Concilium oscumenicum convor-es, Annual fMwt huic. Tuo proposito,
cuius ipse Tibi mentem inspiramt ; habeantque tandem wvi nostri homing qui injirmi injide,
semper discentes et nunquam ad veritatis agnitionem pervementes omni vento doctrinw circum*
feruntur, in sacrosancta hac Synodo novam, prwsentimmamque occasionem accedtwti ad sane-
tarn Ecdesiam columnam ac jfirmamentum veritatis, coffncscendi salutiferamjidam, pcrnichsos
reiiciendi errores ; ac Jiat, Deo propitio, et conciliatrice Daipara Iminaculata, hwc tiynodus
grande opus unitatis, sanc.tijicationis et pacts, unde novus in JScdesiam splendor retlwidett novwt
regni Dei triumphus consequatur. Et hoc ipso TUCK providentice opere denuo wibeatw wundo
immensa benejicia, per Pontificatwnromanum humance sodetati asserta. Patent cunctis^Ecde-
siam eo quod super solidissima.Petrafundetur, tantum valere, ut errores depeUat, mores rorn-
gat, larbariem compescat, civilisque humanitatis mater dicatur et sit. Pateat wundo, quod
divinw auctoritatis et debits eidem obedientice manifestissimo specimine, in dirina Pontijira-
tus institution dato, ea omnia stabilita et sacrata si tit, qua sodetatum fundamenta ac diutur-
nitatem so It dent.'
a ' Quod sane votum apertius etiam se prodit in eo communi Condlii cec.urnrnici dmderio,
quod omnes non modo perutile, sed et necessarium arbitramini. Superbia enim hwnana, vete-
rem ansum instauratura, jamdiu per commenticium progression dvitatem et turrem extruere
nititur, cujus culmen per ting at ad c.aelum, unde demum Deus ipse detrahi possit. A t i& de-
scendisse videtur inspecturus opus, et cedi/icantium linyuas ita cortfusurus, ut non nudiat unus-
§ 31. THE VATICAN COUNCIL, 1870. 137
The call was issued by an Encyclical, commencing dEterni Patris
Uuigenitus Filing in the twenty-third year of his Pontificate, on the
feast of St. Peter and Paul, June 29, 1868. It created at once a uni-
versal commotion in the Christian world, and called fortli a multitude
of books and pamphlets even before the Council convened. The high-
est expectations were suspended by the Pope and his sympathizers on
the coming event. What the Council of Trent had effected against
the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century, the Council of the
Vatican was to accomplish against the more radical and dangerous foes
of modern liberalism and rationalism, which threatened to undermine
Romanism itself in its own strongholds. It was to crush the power of
infidelity, and to settle all that belongs to the doctrine, worship, and
discipline of the Church, and the eternal salvation of souls.1 It was
even hoped that the Council might become a general feast of recon-
ciliation of divided Christendom; and hence the Greek schismatics,
quisque vocem proximi sui : id enim aninio objiciunt Ecclesiw vexationes, miser anda civilis con-
sortii conditio, perturbatio rerum omnium, in qua versamur. Cui sane gravissimce calamitati sola
c.erte objic-i potest divina Ewksim virtus, quos tune maxime se prodit, cum Episcopi a Sum-
mo Pontijice convocati, eo provide, conveniunt in nomine Domini de Ecclesiaz rebus acturi.
Et gaudemus omnino, prcevertisse vos Jiac in re propositum jamdiu a nobis conceptum, com-
mendandi sacrum hunc costum ejus patrocinio, cujus pedi a rerum exordio serpentis caput sub-
jec.tumfuit, quceque deinde universas hcereses sola interemit. Satisfacturi propterea communi
desideriojam nunc nunciamus, futurum quandocunque Concilium sub auspicns Deiparce Virgi-
nis ab omni labe immunis esse constituendum, et eo aperiendum die, quo insignis hujus privilegii
ipsi collati memoria recolitur. Fcucit Deus,faxit Lnmacuhta Virgo, ut amplissimos e saluber-
rimo isto Concilio jfructus percipere vateamus.' While the Pope complains of the pride of the
age in attempting to build another tower of Babel, it did not occur to him that the assump-
tion of infallibility, i. e. , a predicate of the Almighty by a mortal man, is the consummation
of spiritual pride.
1 After describing, in the stereotyped phrases of the Roman Court, the great solicitude of
the successors of Peter for pure doctrine and good government, and the terrible tempests and
calamities by which the Catholic Church and the very foundations of society are shaken in
the present age, the Pope's Encyclical comprehensively but vaguely, and with a prudent re-
serve concerning the desired dogma of Infallibility, defines the objects of the Council in these
words : l In ascumenico hoc Ooncilio ea omnia accuratistdme examine sunt perpendenda ac sta-
tuenda, quw hisc.e prcesertim asjwrimis temporibus majorem Dei gloriam, etjftdei integritatem,
divinique cultus decorem, sempiternamque hominum salutem, et utriusque Cleri disciplinam
ejusque salutarem solidamque culturam, atque ecclesiasticarum hgum observantiam, morumque
emendationem, et christianam juventutis institutionem, et communem omnium pacem et concor-
diam in primis respiciunt. Atque etiam intentissimo studio curandum est, ut, Deo benefu-
vante, omnia ab JEccksia et civili societate amovenntur mala, ut miseri errantes ad rectum
veritatis, justitia salutisque tramitem reducantur, ut vitiis erroribusque eliminatis, augusta nos-
tra religio ejusque salutifera doctrina ubique terrarum reviviscat, et quotidie magis propagetur
et dominetur, atque ita pietas, honestas, probitas, justitia, caritas omnesque Christianoz vir-
tutes cum maxima humance socielatis ulilitate vigeant et efflorescant.'
138 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
and the Protestant heretics and other non-Catholics, were invited by
two special letters of the Pope (Sept. 8, and Sept. 13, 1868) to return
on this auspicious occasion to < the only sheepfold of Christ,' for the
salvation of their souls.1
But the Eastern Patriarchs spurned the invitation, as an insult to
their time-honored rights and traditions, from which they could not
depart.2 The Protestant communions either ignored or respectfully
declined it.3
Thus the Yatican Council, like that of Trent, turned out to ho sim-
ply a general Roman Council, and apparently put the prospect of a
reunion of Christendom farther off than ever before.
While these sanguine expectations of Pius IX. wore doomed to dis-
appointment, the chief object of the Council was attained in spite of
the strong opposition of the minority of liberal Catholics. This object,
which for reasons of propriety is omitted in the bull of convocation and
other preliminary acts, but clearly stated by the organs of the Ultra-
montane or Jesuitical party, was nothing less than the proclamation of
1 * Omnes Christianas etiam atque etiam hortamur et obsecramus, ut ad unicwn Ohristi oinle
redire festinent.' And at the end again, ' unum ovile et unus pastor;' according to the false and
mischievous translation of John x. 1C in the Vulgate (followed by the authorized English
Version), instead of *one flock* (pia iroifjLvq, not a//Xrj). There may be many foldn, and yet
one flock under one Shepherd, as there are 'many mansions' in heaven (John xiv. 2).
9 The Patriarch of Constantinople declined even to receive the Papal letter from the Papal
messenger, for the reasons that it had already been published in the Giornale di ftomtt ; that
it contained principles contrary to the spirit of the Gospel, the doctrinen of the oecumenical
Councils, and the holy Fathers j that there was no supremo Bishop in the Church except
Christ; and that the Bishop of Old Borne had no right to convoke an oecumenical Council
without first consulting the Eastern Patriarchs. The other Oriental Bishops either declined
or returned the Papal letter of invitation. See the documents in .Friedberg, 1. c. pp, 2!W-iif>3 ;
in Qfficielle Adenstucke, etc., pp. 127-135 ; and in the Chronique concernant U Prochain Con-
ci/e, Vol. I. pp. 3 sqq., 103 sqq.
3 The Evangelical Oberkirchenrath of Berlin, the Kirchentag of Stuttgart, 18CJ), the Paris
Branch of the Evangelical Alliance, *Tbe Venerable Company of Pastorw of Geneva,' the
Professorr of the University of Groningen, the Hungarian Lutherans assembled at Pesth, and
the Presbyterians of the United States, took notice of the Papal invitation, all declining it, and
reaffirming the principles of the Protestant Reformation. The Prewbyterian Dr. Gumming,
of London, seemed willing to accept the invitation if the Pope would allow a discussion of the
reasons of the separation from Borne, but was informed by the Pope, through Archbishop
Manning, in two letters (Sept. 4, and Oct. 30, 1 869), that such discussion of questions long
settled would be entirely inconsistent with the infallibility of the Church and the Hupremncy
of the Holy See. See the documents in Friedberg, pp. 235-257 ; comp. pp. 10,17, and Qjffa
Actenstucke, pp. 158-176. The Chronigue concernant k Prochain Cond/e, p. 169, criticises
at length the American Presbyterian letter signed by Jacobus and Fowler (Moderators of the
General Assembly), and sees in its reasons for declining a proof of * heretical obstinacy and
Ignorance.'
§ 31. f HE VATICAN COUNCIL, 18?0. 139
.he personal LifalliUUty of the Pope, as a binding article of the Ro-
man Catholic faith for all time to come.1 Herein lies the whole im-
portance of the Council; all the rest dwindles into insignificance, and
could never have justified its convocation.
After extensive and careful preparations, the first (and perhaps the
last) Vatican Council was solemnly opened amid the sound of innu-
merable bells and the cannon of St. Angelo, but under frowning skies
and a pouring rain, on the festival of the Immaculate Conception of the
Virgin Mary, Dec. 8, 1869, in the Basilica of the Vatican.2 It reached
its height at the fourth public session, July 18, 1870, when the decree
of Papal Infallibility was proclaimed. After this it dragged on a sickly
existence till October 20, 1870, when it was adjourned till Nov. 11,
1870, but indefinitely postponed on account of the extraordinary change
in the political situation of Europe. For on the second of September
the French Empire, which had been the main support of the temporal
power of the Pope, collapsed with the surrender of Napoleon III., at
the old Huguenot stronghold of Sedan, to the Protestant King William
of Prussia, and on the twentieth of September the Italian troops, in the
1 So the OiviltcL cattolica (a monthly Eeview established 1 850, at Rome, the principal organ
of the Jesuits, and the Moniteur of the Papal Court) defined the programme, Feb. 6, 1 869 ; add-
ing to it also the adoption of the Syllabus of 1864, and, perhaps, the proclamation of the as-
sumption of the Virgin Mary to heaven. The last is reserved for the future. The Archbishop
of Westminster (Manning) and the Archbishop of Mechlin (Dechamps) predicted, in pastoral
letters of 1807 and I860, the proclamation of the Papal Infallibility as a certain event. To
avert this danger, the Bishop of Orleans (Dupanloup), Pere Gratry of the Oratory, Pere
Hyacinthe, Bishop Maret (Dean of the Theological Faculty of Paris), Montalembert, John
Henry Newman, the German Catholic laity (in the Coblenz Address), in part the German
Bishops assembled at Fulda, and especially the learned authors of the Janus, lifted their
voice, though in vain. See the literature on the subject in Friedberg, pp. 17-21.
8 Hence the name. The right cross-nave of St. Peter's Church, which itself is a large
church, was separated by a painted board wall, and fitted up as the council-hall. See a
draught of it in Friedberg, p. 98. The hall was very unsuitable for hearing, and had to be
repeatedly altered. The Pope, it is said (Hase, 1. c. p. 26), did not care that all the orators
should be understood. The Vatican Palace, where the Pope now resides, adjoins the Church
of St. Peter. Councils were held there before, but only of a local character. Formerly the Ro-
man oBcumenical Councils were held in the Lateran Palace, the ancient residence of the
Popes, which is connected with the Church of St. John in the Lateran or Church of the
Saviour ('omnium wins et orbis ecclesiarum mater et caput'). There are five Lateran Coun-
cils : the first was held, 11 23, under Calixtus II. ; the second. 1139, under Innocent II. ; the
third, 1 1 79, under Alexander III. ; the fourth and largest, 1215, under Innocent III. ; the
fifth, 13 1 2-151 7, under Leo X., on the eve of the Reformation. The basilica of the Late-
ran contains the head, the basilica of St. Peter the body, of St. Peter. The Pope expressed
the hope that a special inspiration would proceed from the near grave of the prince of the Apos-
tles upon the Fathers of the Council.
140 * HE CREElXS OF CHRISTENDOM.
name of King Yictor Emanuel. took possession of Rome, as the future
capital of united Italy. Whether tho Council will ever bo convened
again to complete its vast labors, like tho twice interrupted Council of
Trent, remains to be seen. But, in proclaiming the personal Infallibil-
ity of the Pope, it made all future (Ecumenical Councils unnecessary
for the definition of dogmas and the regulation of discipline, HO that
hereafter they will be expensive luxuries and empty ritualistic shows.
The acts of the Vatican Council, as far as they go, are irrevocable.
The attendance was larger than that of any of its eighteen predeces-
sors,1 and presented an imposing array of hierarchical dignity and
power such aa the world never saw before, and as the Eternal City itself
is not likely ever to see again. What a contrast this to the first ( -01111-
eil of the apostles, elders, and brethren in an upper chamber in Jerusa-
lem ! The whole number of prelates of the Roman Catholic Church,
who are entitled to a seat in an oecumenical Council, is one thousand
and thirty-seven.2 Of these there were present at the opening of the
Council 719, viz., 49 Cardinals, 9 Patriarchs, 4 Primates, 1^1 Arch-
bishops, 479 Bishops, 57 Abbots and Generals of monastic orders."
This number afterwards increased to 764, viz., 49 Cardinals, 10 Pa-
triarchs, 4 Primates, 105 diocesan Archbishops, 22 Archbishops in parti-
bus infidelium, 424 diocesan Bishops, 98 Bishops in partibim, and 52
-Abbots, and Generals of monastic orders.4 Distributed according to con-
1 As the oecumenical character of two or three Councils in dinpntcd, the Vatican Council is
variously reckoned as the 1 9th or UOth or iilst oQcumeuR'ol Council; by strict HonmuintH (as
Manning) as the 19th. Compare note on p. 91.
3 See a full list, with all the titles, in the Lexicon geoffrapJatwn added to tho HOCOIH! part
of the Acta et Decre.ta sucromncti et ceruw. Cone.. Vat Irani, Friburgi, 1871. 'Die ProlntOH
tg[uibus aut jus aut priuilegium fuit setfendi in <%cum<mica synodo Vutirunu,* arc arranged as
follows :
(1.) Eminentissiroi et reverendissimi Domini S.E. Rom. OAIIDINALKS : (a) ordiwH Kpisco-
pcrom, (h) ordinis Preshyterorum, (<•) ordinis diaconorum — 31.
(^.) Reverendissimi Domini PATUIAHCH^E— 11.
(3.) ReverendisKimi Dl). TRIM ATMS — 10.
(4.) Reverendissimi DD. ARCHIKPISOOPI — 166,
(f>.) Reverendissimi I)D. EPISCOPI — 740.
(G.) ABBATBS nullius dioceseos— 0.
(7.) ABBATBS GBNBRALRB ordinum monasticorum — 23.
(8.) GrBNBRALEs et ViCAUii GKMKRAL.K8 congregation urn clericorum regularium, ordinuin
raonasticorum, ordinum mendicantium — '^0. In all, 1037.
3 See the list of names i-n Friedberg, pp, 870-894.
* See the official Catnlogo alfabetico dei Fadri presenti at Concilia ecumenico
Roma, 1870.
§ 31. THE VATICAN COUNCIL, 1870. 141
tinents, 541 of these belonged to Europe, 83 to Asia, 14 to Africa, 113 to
America, 13 to Oceanica. At the proclamation of the decree of Papal
Infallibility, July 18, 1870, the number was reduced to 535, and after-
wards it dwindled down to 200 or 180.
Among the many nations represented,1 the Italians had a vast ma-
jority of 276, of whom 143 belonged to the former Papal States alone.
France, with a much larger Catholic population, had only 84, Austria
and Hungary 48, Spain 41, Great Britain 35, Germany 19, the United
States 48, Mexico 10, Switzerland 8, Belgium 6, Holland 4, Portugal
2, Russia 1. The disproportion between the representatives of the dif-
ferent nations and the number of their constituents wab overwhelm-
ingly in favor of the Papal influence. Nearly one half of the Fathers
were entertained during the Council at the expense of the Pope.
The Eomans themselves were remarkably indifferent to the Council,
though keenly alive to the financial gain which the dogma of the In-
fallibility of their sovereign would bring to the Eternal City and the
impoverished Papal treasury.2 It is well known how soon after the
Council they voted almost in a body against the temporal power of the
Pope, and for their new master.
The strictest secresy was enjoined upon the members of the Council.3
The stenographic reports of the proceedings were locked up in the
archives. The world was only to know the final results as proclaimed
in the public sessions, until it should please the Eoman court to issue
an official history. But the freedom of the press in the nineteenth
century, the elements of discord in the Council itself, the enterprise or
indiscretion of members and friends of both parties, frustrated the
precautions. The principal facts, documents, speeches, plans, and in-
trigues leaked out in the official schemata, the controversial pamphlets
of Prelates, and the private reports and letters of outside observers
who were in intimate and constant intercourse with their friends in
the Council.4
1 Manning says, ' some thirty nations'— probably an exaggeration.
3 Quirinus, pp. 480, 481 (English translation).
3 They had to promise and swear to observe 'inviolabilem secreti fi dem' with regard to the
discussions, the opinions, and all matters pertaining to the Council. See the form of the oath
in Friodberg, p. 90. In ancient Councils the people are often mentioned as being present
during the deliberations, and manifesting their feelings of approval and disapproval.
* Among the irresponsible but well-informed reporters and correspondents must be men-
142 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
The subject-matter for deliberation was divided into four parts: on
Faith, Discipline, Religious Orders, and on Rites, including Missions.
Each part was assigned to a special Commission (Conyr&jatto or !)&•
putatio\ consisting of 24 Prelates elected by ballot for the whole pe-
riod of the Council, with a presiding Cardinal appointed by the Pope.
These Commissions prepared the decrees on the basin of whew at a pre-
viously drawn up by learned divines and canonists, and confidentially
submitted to the Bishops in print.1 The decrees were then discussed,
revised, and adopted in secret sessions by the General Congregation
(Congregations generales), including all the Fathers, with five pro-
siding Cardinals appointed by the Pope. The General Congregation
held eighty-nine sessions in all. Finally, the decrees thus matured were
voted upon by simple yeas or nays (Placet or Non Placet)^ and sol-
emnly promulgated in public sessions in the presence and by the au-
thority of the Pope. A conditional assent (Placet juxta modwn?) was
allowed in the secret, but not in the public sessions.
There were only four such public sessions held during the ten months
of the Council, viz., the opening session (lasting nearly seven hours),
Dec. 8,1869, which was a mere formality, but of a ritualistic splendor
and magnificence such as can be gotten up nowhere on earth but in
St. Peter's Cathedral in Rome; the second session, Jan. 6, 1870, when
the Fathers simply professed each one before the Pope the Nicene
Creed and the Profession of the Tridentine Faith; the third session,
April 24, 1870, when the dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith
was unanimously adopted ; and the fourth session, July 18, 1870, when
the first dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ and the In-
fallibility of the Pope was adopted with two dissenting votes.
The management of the Council was entirely in the hands of the
Pope and his dependent Cardinals and Jesuitical advisers. He origi-
tioned especially the writers in the Cinilta cattolica, and the Paris Unimrs, on the pan of
the Infallibilists ; and the pseudonymous QuirinuR, Prof. Friedrich, and the anonymous
French authors of Ce qui se passe au Candle, and of La dernfere Iwurt du Candle, on the
part of the anti-Infallibilists.
1 There were in all forty-five schemata, divided into four classes : (1) circa Jldm, (2) rirca
disciplinam ecclesim, (3) circa ordines regulares, (4) circa res ritus orimtalis et apostottcas
missiones. See a list in Friedberg, pp. 432-484. Only a part of the schemata were submit-
ted, and only the first two schemata defide were acted upon. Friedrich, in the Second Part
of his Documenta, gives the schemata, as far as they were distributed among the Bishops, to-
gether with the revisions and criticisms of the Bishops.
§ 31. THE VATICAN COUNCIL, 1870. 143
nated the topics which were to be acted on ; he selected the prepara-
tory committees of theologians (mostly of the Ultramontane school)
who, daring the winter of 1868-69, drew up the schemata; he ap-
pointed the presiding officers of the four Deputations, and of the Gen-
eral Congregation; and he proclaimed the decrees in his own name,
< with the approval of the Council.51 He provided, by the bull ' Cum
Eomanis Pontifid'bus] of Dec. 4, 1869, for the immediate suspension
and adjournment of the Council in case of his death. He even person-
ally interfered during the proceedings in favor of his new dogma by
praising Infallibilists, and by ignoring or rebuking anti-Iiifallibilists.2
The discussion could be virtually arrested by the presiding Cardinals
at the request of only ten members ; we say virtually, for although it
required a vote of the Council, a majority was always sure. The revised
order of business, issued Feb. 22, 1870, departed even from the old rule
requiring absolute or at least moral unanimity in definitions of faith
(according to the celebrated canon quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab
omnibus creditum esf), and substituted for it a mere numerical major-
ity, in order to secure the triumph of the Infallibility decree in spite of
a powerful minority. Nothing could be printed in Rome against In-
fallibility, while the organs of Infallibility had full freedom to print
1 Under the title : Pius episcopus, servus servorum Dei, sacro approbante Concilia, ad per'
petuam rei memoriam. The order prescribed for voting was this : The Pope, through the Sec-
retary, asked the members of the Council first in general : Reverendissimi Patres, placentne
volis Deer eta et Canones qui in hac Constitutions continentur? Then each one was called by
name, and must vote either placet or non placet. When the votes were collected and brought
to the Pope, he announced the result by this formula : Deer eta et Canones qui in Constitu-
tione modo lecta continentur, placuerunt omnibus Patribus, nemine dissentiente [if there were
dissenting votes the Pope stated their number] ; Nosque, sacro approbante ConciUo, ilia
[so. decreta"] et illos [canones], ita ut lecta sunt, definimus, et ApostoKca Auctoritate confir-
mamus. See the Monitum in the Giornale di Roma, April 18, 1870 ; Friedberg, pp. 462-464.
a See the laudatory letters of Pius to several advocates of Infallibility, in Friedberg, pp. 487-
495 ; comp. pp. 108-111 . To Archbishop Dechamps, of Mechlin, he wrote that, in his tract
on Papal Infallibility, he had proved the harmony of the Catholic faith with human reason
so convincingly as to force even the Rationalists to see the absurdity of the opposite views.
He applauded the indefatigable and abusive editor of the Paris Univers, Veuillot, who had col-
lected 100,000 francs for the Vicar of Christ (May 30, 1870). On the other hand, he is re-
ported to have rebuked in conversation Cardinal Schwarzenberg by the remark: 'I, John
Maria Mastai, believe in the infallibility of the Pope. As Pope I have nothing to ask from
the Council. The Holy Ghost will enlighten it. ' He even attacked the memory of the elo-
quent French champion of Catholic interests, the Count Montalembert, who died during the
Council (March 13, 1870), by saying, in the presence of three hundred persons : ' He had a
great enemy, pride. He was a liberal Catholic, i. e., a half Catholic.' Ce qui se passe av
Concile, 154 sqq.
THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
and publish what they pleased.1 Such prominence of the Pope is char-
acteristic of a Council convoked for the very purpose of proclaiming
his personal infallibility, but is without precedent in history (except in
some medieval Councils) ; even the Council of Trent maintained its
own dignity and comparative independence by declaring its decrees in
its own name.2
This want of freedom of the Council — not to speak of the strict
police surveillance over the members — was severely censured by lib-
eral Catholics. More than one hundred Prelates of all nations signed
a strong protest (dated Koine, March 1, 1870) against the order of
business, especially against the mere majority vote, and expressed the
fear that in the end the authority of this Council might be impaired as
wanting in truth and liberty — a calamity so direful in these uneasy
times, that a greater could not be imagined. But this protest, like
all the acts of the minority, was ignored.
The proceedings were, of course, in the official language of the Ro-
man Church, which all Prelates could understand and speak, but very
few with sufficient ease to do justice to themselves and their subjects.
The acoustic defects of the Council-hall and the difference of pronun-
ciation proved a great inconvenience, and the Continentals complained
1 Several minority documents, as Kenrick's speech against Infallibility, and the Latin edi-
tion of Hefele's tract on Honorius, were printed in Naples ; the German in Tubingen. But
the Civilta cattolica, the irresponsible organ of the JesuitH and the Pope, was provided with a
special building and income, and every facility for obtaining information, ISee Acton, Quiri-
nus, and Fromniann (1. c. p. 13).
2 ' Swrosancta Tridentina Sy nodus, in Spiritu Sancto hgitime congragata . . . dwhtraL'
See the order of the Council of Trent as republislied in Friedrich'H Document^ I. pp, 2(Jf> sqq.
3 '•Id autem, quod spectat ad numerum sujfragiorum requisitum, ut quwstiones dogmatics
solvantur, in quo quidem rei summa est totiusque Concilii cardo vc,rtitur, itct grave est, ut nm
admitteretur, quod reverenter et enixe postulamus, conscientia nostra intolerabili pondere preme-
retur: timeremus, ne Concilii oscumenid character in dubium iwari posset; nt ansa hostlbus
prceberetur Sanvtam Sedem et Concilium impetendi, sic.que demum apud populum (Jhrutianum
hujus Concilii awtoritas fabefactaretur, quasi veritate et libertate caruerit : quod his turba-
tissimis temporibus tanta esset calamitas, ut pejor excogitari nulla po$$iL' 8ee the remarkable
protest in Friedberg, pp. 417-422. Also Dollinger's critique of the order of bu«inesBT ib« 4I>2~
482 ; Archbishop Kenrick's famous concio habenda at non kabita, published in Naplew, 1870
(and republiahed in Friedrich's Docum.}; the work La liberti du Concile et VinfaiUibilit€,
which was either written or inspired by Archbishop Darboy, of Paris (in Friedrich's Dwum.
I. pp. 129 sqq.), and the same Prelate's speech in the General Congregation, May 20, 1870
(ibidem, II. pp. 415 sqq.). Archbishop Manning, sublimely ignoring all thene facts and docu-
ments, and referring us to the inaccessible Archives of the Vatican, assures u« (PetH PriviL
III. 82) that the Council was as free as the Congress of the United States, and that the won-
der is, not that the opposition failed of its object, but that the Council so long held its peace*
§ 31. THE VATICAN COUNCIL, 1870.
that they could not understand the English Latin. The Council had
a full share of ignorance and superstition,1 and was disgraced by in-
trigues and occasional outbursts of intolerance and passion such as are,
alas! not unusual in deliberative assemblies even of the Christian
Church*2 But it embraced also much learning and eloquence, espe-
cially on the part of the French and German Episcopate. Upon the
whole, it compares favorably, as to intellectual ability, moral character,
and far-reaching effect, with preceding Eoman Councils, and must be
1 Some amusing examples are reported by the well-informed Quirinus. Bishop Pie, of
Poitiers, supported the Papal Infallibility in a session of the General Congregation (May
13) by an entirely original argument derived from the legend that Peter was crucified down-
ward ; for as his head bore the whole weight of the body, so the Pope, as the head, bears
the whole Church ; but he is infallible who bears, not he who is borne! The Italians and Span-
iards applauded enthusiastically. Unfortunately for the argument, the head of Peter did not
bear his body, but the cross bore both ; consequently the cross must be infallible. A Sicilian
Prelate said the Sicilians first doubted the infallibility of Peter when he visited the island,
and sent a special deputation of inquiry to the Virgin Mary, but were assured by her that she
remembered well having been present when Christ conferred this prerogative on Peter ; and
this satisfied them completely. Quirinus adds : * The opposition Bishops see a proof of the
insolent contempt of the majority in thus putting up such men as Pie and this Sicilian to speak
against them. ' Letter XL VL p. 584.
8 The following characteristic episode (ignored, of course, in Manning's eulogy) is well au-
thenticated by the concurrent and yet independent reports of Lord Acton (N. Brit. Rev.\
Quirinus (Letter XXXIL\ Friedrich (Tagebuch, pp. 271, 272), and the author of Ce qui se
passe au Concile (p. 69); comp. Friedherg (pp. 104-106). When Bishop Strossmayer, the
boldest member of the opposition and an eloquent Latinist, in a session of the General Con-
gregation (March 22), spoke favorably of the great Leibnitz, and paid Protestants the poor
compliment of honesty (quoting from St. Augustine : 'Errant, sed bonafide errant^ he was
interrupted by the bell of the President (De Angelis) and his rebuke, * This is no place for
praising Protestants' ('hicce nan est locus laudandi Protestantes' )! Very true, for the Coun-
cil-hall was only a hundred paces from the Palace of the Inquisition. When, resuming, the
speaker ventured to attack the principle of deciding questions of faith by mere majorities, he
was more loudly interrupted from all sides by confused exclamations: * Shame! shame 1
down with the heretic!' ('Descendat db ambone! Descendat! IfcereticusJ Hcereticus! Dam-
namus eum! Damnamusf) 'Several Bishops sprang from their seats, rushed to the tribune,
and shook their fists in the speaker's face' (Quirinus, p. 387). When one Bishop (Place, of
Marseilles) interposed, * Ego non damno /' the cry was raised with increased fury : * Omnes,
omnes ilium damnamus! damnamusT Strossmayer was forced by the uproar and the con-
tinued ringing of the bell to quit the tribune, but did so with a triple 'Protestor.' The noise
was so great that it could be heard in the interior of St. Peter's. Some thought the Gari-
baldians had broken in ; others that Infallibility had been proclaimed, and shouted, accord-
ing to their opposite views, either 'Long live the infallible Pope!7 or 'Long live the Pope,
but not the infallible one' (comp. Quirinus, and Ce gu% se passe, p. 69). Quirinus says that
the scene, ' for dramatic force and theological significance, exceeded almost any thing in the
past history of Councils' (p. 386), and that a Bishop of the United States said afterwards, *not
without a sense of patriotic pride, that he knew now of one assembly still rougher than the
Congress of his own country' (p. 388). Similar scenes of violence occurred in the oecumen-
ical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, but Christian civilization ought to have made some
progress since the fifth century.
14:6 THE CEEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
regarded as the greatest event in the history of the Papacy since the
Council of Trent.
The chief importance of the Council of the Vatican lies in its decree
on Papal supremacy and Infallibility. It settled the internal dissen-
sions between Ultramontanism and Gallicanism, which struck at the
root of the fundamental principle of authority ; it destroyed the inde-
pendence of the Episcopate, and made it a tool of the Primacy ; it
crushed liberal Catholicism ; it completed the system of Papal abso-
lutism ; it raised the hitherto disputed opinion of Papal Infallibility to
the dignity of a binding article of faith, which no Catholic can deny
without loss of salvation. The Pope may now say not only, * I am the
tradition' (La tradizione son' •&(?), but also/ 1 am the Church' (Diglise
dest moi) !
But this very triumph of absolutism marks also a new departure. It
gave rise to a secession headed by the ablest divines of the Roman
Church. It pxit the Papacy into direct antagonism to the liberal tend-
encies of the age. It excited the hostility of civil government in all
those countries where Church and State are united on the basis of a
Concordat with the Eoman See. No State with any degree of self-
respect can treat with a sovereign who claims infallibility, and there-
fore unconditional submission in matters of moral duty as well as of
faith. In reaching the summit of its power, the Papacy has hastened
its downfall.
For Protestants and Greeks the Vatican Council is no more oecumen-
ical than that of Trent, and has only intensified the antagonism. Its
oecumenicity is also denied by the Old Catholic scholars — Dcil-
linger, von Schulte, and Eeinkens — because it lacked the two fun-
damental conditions of liberty of discussion, and moral unanimity
of suffrage.1 Exit the subsequent submission of all the Bishops who
had voted against Papal Infallibility, supplies the defect as far as the
1 See the Old Catholic protests of the Professors in Munich and Breslau in Friedberg,
pp. 152-154, and the literature on the reception of the Council, ib. 53-56 ; also the discussion
of Frommunn, pp. 325 sqq. 454 sqq. Dollinger, in his famous censure of the now order of the
Council, takes the ground that the cecumenicity of a Council depends upon an authority out-
side of itself, viz., the public opinion as expressed in the subsequent approval of the whole
Church ; and Pater Hotzl laid down the principle that no Council is oecumenical which is not
approved and adopted as such by the Church. Admitting this, the condition is now fulfilled
in the case of the Vatican Council to the whole extent of the Roman Kpiscopate, which con-
stitutes the ecdesia docens, the laity having nothing to do but to submit.
§ 32. THE VATICAN DECREES. 147
Roman Church is concerned. There was nothing left to them but
either to submit or to be expelled. They chose the former, and thus
destroyed the legal and moral force of their protest, although not the
power of truth and the nature of the facts on which it was based.
Henceforward Romanism must stand or fall with the Vatican Council.
But (as we have before intimated) Romanism is not to be confounded
with Catholicism any more than the Jewish hierarchy which crucified
our Saviour, is identical with the people of Israel, from which sprang
the Apostles and early converts of Christianity. The destruction of
the infallible and irreformable Papacy may be the emancipation of
Catholicism, and lead it from its prison-house to the light of a new
Reformation.
§ 32. THE VATICAN DECREES. THE CONSTITUTION ON THE CATHOLIC
FAITH.
Three schemes on matters of faith were prepared for the Vatican
Council — one against Rationalism, one on the Church of Christ, and
one on Christian Matrimony. The first two were revised and adopted;
the third was indefinitely postponed. There was also much discussion
on the preparation of a small popular Catechism adapted to the present
doctrinal status of the Roman Church, and intended to supersede the
numerous popular Catechisms now in use ; but the draft, which assigned
the whole teaching power of the Church to the Pope, to the exclusion
of the Episcopate, encountered such opposition (57 Non Placet^ 24
conditional Placet) in the provisional vote of May 4, that it was laid
on the table and never called up again.1
I. THE DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CATHOLIC FAITH (OONSTITUTIO
DOGMATIOA DE FIDE OATHOLICA).
It was unanimously adopted in the third public session, April 24
(Dominica m albis), 1870.
The original draft laid before the Council embraced eighteen chap-
ters— on Pantheism, Rationalism, Scripture and tradition, revelation,
faith and reason, the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, the primitive
state, original sin, the Christian redemption, the supernatural order of
1 Cardinal- Archbishop Matthieu of Besan$on, who voted Non Placet, is reported by Quirinus
to have said on this occasion : ' On veut jeter Vfylise dans Fabime, nous y jeterons plutdt nos
cadavres. ' Comp. If rommann, 1. c. p. 1 60.
148 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
grace; but was laid aside.1 Archbishop Connolly, of Halifax, recom-
mended that it should be decently buried.2
In its present form, the Constitution on the Catholic faith is reduced to
four chapters, with a proemhnn and a conclusion. Chap. I. treats of God
as the Creator; Chap. II. of revelation ; Chap. III. of faith; Chap. IV.
of faith and reason. Then follow 18 canons, in which the errors of
Pantheism, Naturalism, and Rationalism are condemned in a manner
substantially the same, though more clearly and fully, than had been
done in the first two sections of the Syllabus.
The decree asserts, in the old scholastic terminology, the well-known
principles of Supernaturalism as held by orthodox Christians in all ages,
but it completely ignores the freedom and progress of theological and
philosophical science and learning since the Council of Trent, and it
forbids (in Chap. II.) all interpretation of the Scriptures which does not
agree with the Romish traditions, the Latin Vulgate, and the fictitious
'unanimous consent of the Fathers.' Hence a liberal member of the
Council, in the course of discussion, declared the schema dejide a work
of supererogation. ' What boots it,' he said, f to condemn errors which
have been long condemned, and tempt no Catholic ? The false beliefs
of mankind are beyond the reach of your decrees. The best defense of
Catholicism is religious science. Encourage sound learning, and prove
by deeds as well as words that it is the mission of the Church to pro-
mote among the nations liberty, light, and true prosperity.'3 On the
other hand, the Univers calls the schema a < masterpiece of clearness
and force ;' the Cwrilt& cattoUca sees in it c a reflex of the wisdom of
God;5* and Archbishop Manning thinks that its importance ccan not
be overestimated,' that it is c the broadest and boldest affirmation of the
supernatural and spiritual order ever yet made in the face of the world,
which is now more than ever sunk in sense and heavy with Material-
ism.'5 Whatever be the. value of the positive principles of the schema,
1 Medrich, Docum. II. pp. 3-28.
a * Censeo schema cum konore es&e sepeliendum ' (Quirinus, p. 1 22). Kauffoher also spoke
against the schema, which made much impression, because he had brought its chief iu.Jior,
the Jesuit Schrader, to the University of Vienna.
3 Quoted in Latin by Lord Acton in the North British Rwiow, Oct. 1870, p. 1 12, and in
Friedberg, p. 102. Acton attributes this speech, not to Strossmayer (as Friedborg says, 1. c. ;
comp. pp. 28 and 102), but to a c Swiss prelate,' whom he does not name,
* * Un riverbero della sapienza di JJioJ VII. 10, p. 528, quoted by Fromnaann, 1. c. p. 883.
* JPetri Privilegium, III. po. 49. 50.
§ 32. THE VATICAN DECREES. 149
its Popish head and tail reduce it to a "brutum fulmen outside of the
Komish Church, and even the most orthodox Protestants must apply
to it the warning, Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.
The preamble, even in its present modified form, derives modern
Eationalism and infidelity, as a legitimate fruit, from the heresies con-
demned by the Council of Trent — that is, from the Protestant Befor-
mation ; in the face of the fact, patent to every scholar, that Protestant
theology has been in the thickest of the fight with unbelief, and, not-
withstanding all its excesses, has produced a far richer exegetical and
apologetic literature than Eomanism during the last three hundred
years.1 The boldest testimony heard in the Council was directed
against this preamble by Bishop Strossmayer, from the Turkish frontier
(March 22, 1870). He characterized the charge against Protestantism
as neither just nor charitable. Protestants, he said, abhorred the errors
condemned in the schema as much as Catholics. The germ of Eation-
alism existed in the Catholic Church before the Eeformation, especially
in the humanism which was nourished in the very sanctuary by the
highest dignitaries,2 and bore its worst fruits in the midst of a Catholic
nation at the time of Voltaire and the Encyclopedists. Catholics had
produced no better refutation of the errors enumerated in the schema
than such men as Leibnitz and Guizot. There were multitudes of
Protestants in Germany, England, and North America who loved our
Lord Jesus Christ, and had inherited from the shipwreck of faith posi-
tive truths and monuments of divine grace.3 Although this speech
was greeted with execrations (see page 145), it had at least the effect
that the objectionable preamble was somewhat modified.4
1 The objectionable passage, as finally adopted, reads thus : ' No one is ignorant that the
heresies proscribed by the Fathers of Trent, by which the divine magisterium of the Church
was rejected, and all matters regarding religion were surrendered to the judgment of each
individual, gradually became dissolved into many sects, which disagreed and contended with
one another, until at length not a few lost all faith in Christ. Even the Holy Scriptures,
which had previously been declared the sole source and judge of Christian doctrine, began to
be held no longer as divine, but to be ranked among the fictions of mythology. Then there
arose, and too widely overspread the world, that doctrine of Rationalism which opposes itself
in every way to the Christian religion as a supernatural institution.' See the different re-
visions of the schema defide in ITriedrich's Monum. Pt. II. pp. 3, Go, 73.
a Allusion to Pope Leo X.
3 See the principal part of Strossmayer's speech in Latin in Lord Acton's article in the
North British Review, Oct. 1 870, pp. 1 1 5, 1 1 6, and in Friedberg, pp. 104-106.
* The words in the first revision (Friedr. Docum. II. p. 65), systematum monstra, mythismi,
rationalism*, indifferentismi nomine designata, etc., together with some other offensive ex
150 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
The supplement of the decree binds all Catholics to observe also
those constitutions and decrees by -which such erroneous opinions as
are not here specifically enumerated have been proscribed and con-
demned by the Holy See. This can be so construed as to include
all the eighty errors of the Syllabus. The minority who in the Gen-
eral Congregation had voted Non Placet or only a conditional Placet,
were quieted by the official assurance that the addition involved no
new dogma, and had a disciplinary rather than a didactic character.
* Some gave their votes with a heavy heart, conscious of the snare.'
Strossmayer stayed away. Thus a unanimous vote of 667 or 668 fa-
thers was secured in the public session, and the Infallibility decree was
virtually anticipated. The Pope, after proclaiming the dogma, gave
the Bishops his benediction of peace, and gently intimated what he
next expected from them.1
§ 33. THE VATICAN DECREES, CONTINUED. THE INFALLIBILITY DECREE.
II. THE FIRST DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH OF CHRIST (OON-
STITUTIO DOGMATIOA PRIMA DE EOOLESIA CHRISTl).
It was passed, with two dissenting votes, in the fourth public session,
July 18, 1870. It treats, in four chapters — (1) on the institution of the
Apostolic Primacy in the blessed Peter; (2) on the perpetuity of St.
Peter's Primacy in the Roman Pontiff ; (3) on the power and nature
pressions, were omitted ; but, after all, the substance remained. Lord Acton relates that the
German Jesuit Kleutgen hastily drew up the more moderate form, Oomp. Quirinus, Letter
2Z.XXIIL p. 304 sq. Political influence was also brought to bear indirectly upon the Coun-
cil, as appeared afterwards from Italian papers. Bismarck directed the German Embas-
sador at Rome, Count Arnim, to inform Cardinal Antonelli that, unless the charge against
Protestantism was withdrawn, he would not allow the Prussian Bishops on their return to
resume their functions in a country whose faith they had insulted. Friedrich, Tagcbuch, pp.
275, 292 ; Frommann, Geschichte des Vat. Concik'p. 145 ; Hase, Polem. p. 84. The latter
overestimates the influence of Prussia on the Papal court when he says : ' If France com-
plains of the Council, Antonelli makes three bows, and all remains as before ; but if Prussia
comes with her mustache and cavalry boots, Rome understands that the word is quickly fol-
lowed by the deed, and wisely yields. Stro^smayer and von Arnim were in doubt which one
of them had been most instrumental in saving the Council from an impropriety. '
1 'VidetisJ he said, 'Fratres carissimi, guam bonum sit et jucundum ambulare in domo Dei
cum consensv, ambulare cum pace. Sic ambuletis semper. Et quoniam hac die Dominus Noster-
Jesus Christvs dedit pacem Apostolis suis, et ego, Vicarius ejus indiynus, nomine two do vobis
pacem. Pax ista, prout scitis, expellit timorem. Pax ?*ta, prout scitis, clnudit tture.s $ermo~
nibus imperitis. Ah ! ista pax vos comitetur omnibus diebus vitce vestrce; sit ista pax vis in
morte, sit ista pax vobis gaudium sempiternwn in calis.'
§ 33. THE VATICAN DECREES, CONTINUED. 15J
of the Primacy of the Eoman Pontiff ; (4) on the Infallibility of the
Roman Pontiff.
The new features are contained in the last two chapters, which teach
Pa/pal Absolutism and Papal Infallibility. The third chapter vindi-
cates to the Koman Pontiff a superiority of ordinary episcopal (not
simply an extraordinary primatial) power over all other Churches, and
an immediate jurisdiction, to which all Catholics, both pastors and peo-
ple, are bound to submit in matters not only of faith and morals, but
even of discipline and government.1 He is, therefore, the Bishop of
Bishops, over every single Bishop, and over all Bishops put together ;
he is in the fullest sense the Vicar of Christ, and all Bishops are sim-
ply Yicars of the Pope. The fourth chapter teaches and defines, as a
divinely revealed dogma, that the Eoman Pontiff, when speaking from
his chair (ex cathedra), i. e., in his official capacity, to the Christian
world on subjects relating to faith or morals, is infallible, and that such
definitions are irreformable (i. e., final and irreversible) in and of them-
selves, and not in consequence of the consent of the Church.2
1 After quoting, in a mutilated form, the definition of the Council of Florence, whose
genuineness is disputed (compare p. 97, note 1), the third chapter goes on : lj)ocemus et
declaramus, Ecclesiam Romanam, disponente Domino, super omnes alias ordinance potestatis
obtinere principatum, et kanc Romani Pontificis jurisdictionis potestatem, quce vere episco-
palis est, immediatam esse, erga quam cujuscunque ritus et dignitatis pastor es atque fideles,
tarn seorsum singuli quam simul omnes, officio hierarchical subordinationis verosgue obedientico
obstringuntur, non solum in rebus, quce adfidem et mores, sed etiam in Us, quce ad disciplinam
et regimen IScclesice per totum orbem diffuses pertinent ; ita ut,custodita cum Romano Pontifice
tarn communionis quam ejusdem Jidei professions unitate, Ecclesice Chyisti sit unus grex sub
uno summo pastor e. Haec est catholicce veritatis doctrina, a qua deviare salvafide atque salute
nemo potest. . . . Si guis Hague dixerit, Romanum Pontificem habere tantummodo officium
inspectionis vel directionis, non autem plenam et supremam potestatem jurisdictionis in uni-
versam JEcclesiam, non solum in rebus, quce adfidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quce ad discipli-
nam et regimem Ecclesice per totum orbem diffuses pertinent ; aut eum habere tantum potiores
partes, non vero totam plenitudinem hujus supremce potestatis; aut hanc ejus potestatem non
eftse or dinar iam et immediatam sive in omnes ac singulas ecclesias, sive in omnes et singulos
pastores etfideles; anathema sit.'
a 'Itaque Nos traditioni a fidei Christianas exordio perceptce fideliter inhosrendo, ad Dei
Salvatoris nostri gloriam, religionis Catholicce, exaltationem et Christianorum populorum salu-
tem, sacro approbante Concilio, docemus et divinitus revelatum dogma esse declaramus : Ko-
MANTIM PONTmCEM, CUM EX CATHEDRA LOQUITUR, ID EST, CUM OMNIUM CHRISTIANOBTJM
PASTOKIS ET DOOTORIS MUNERE FUNOENS PRO SUPREMA SUA APOSTOLIOA AUCTORITATE
DOCTRINAM DE FIDE VEL MORIBU3 AB UNIVERSA ECOLESIA TENENDAM DEFINIT, PER ASSI8-
TBNTIAM DIVINAM, IPSI IN BEATO PETRO PROMISSAM, EA INFALLIBILITATE POLLERB, QUA
DIVINUS BEDEMPTOR EOCLESIAM SUAM IN DEFINIENDA DOCTRINA DE FIDE VEL MORIBUS
INSTRUCTAM ESSE VOLUIT J IDEOQUE EJU8MODI KOMANI PONTIFICIS DEFINITIONES EX SESE,
NON AUTEM EX CONSENSU ECCLESI^, IRREFORMABILES ESSE.
'Si quis autem huic Nostrce definitioni contradicere, quod Deus avertat, prcesumpserit;
anathema sit. '
VOL. I— L
152 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
To appreciate the value and bearing of this decree, we must give a
brief history of it.
The Infallibility question was suspended over the Council from the
very beginning as the question of questions, for good or for evil. The
original plan of the Infallibilists, to decide it by acclamation, had to be
abandoned in view of a formidable opposition, which was developed in-
side and outside of the Council. The majority of the Bishops circulated,,
early in January, a monster petition, signed by 410 names, in favor of
Infallibility.1 The Italians and the Spaniards circulated similar peti-
tions separately. Archbishop Spalding, of Baltimore, formerly an anti-
Infallibilist, prepared an address offering some compromise to the
effect that an appeal from the Pope to an oecumenical Council should
be reproved.2 But five counter-petitions, signed by very weighty
names, in all 137, representing various degrees of opposition, but
agreed as to the inopportunity of the definition, were sent in during
the same month (Jan. 12 to 18) by German and Austrian, Hungarian,
French, American, Oriental, and Italian Bishops.3
The Pope received none of these addresses, but referred them to the
Deputation on Faith. While in this he showed his impartiality, he
did not conceal, in a private way, his real opinion, and gave it the
weight of his personal character and influence. ' Faith in his personal
infallibility,5 says a well-informed Catholic, £ and belief in a constant
and special communication with the Holy Ghost, form the basis of
the character of Pius IX.H In the Council itself, Archbishop Manning,
the Anglican convert, was the most zealous, dovout, and enthusiastic
Inf allibilist ; he -urged the definition as the surest means of gaining
hesitating Anglo-Catholics and Bitualists longing for absolute authority ;
while his former teacher and friend, Dr. Pusey, feared that the new
1 Friedberg, pp. 46/5-470. Comp. Frommann, p. 59 sq.
9 Friedberg, pp. 470 sqq. ; Frommann, pp. G1-G8.
3 Friedberg, pp. 472-478. The American petition against Infallibility was signed by Par-
cell, of Cincinnati ; Kenrick, of St. Louis ; McCloskey, of New York j Connolly, of Halifax ;
Bayley, of Newark (now Archbishop of Baltimore), and several others.
* Ce gui se passe au Condle, p. 130. The writer adds that some of the predecessors of Pius
nave held his doctrines, but none has been so ardently convinced, none has professed them
* avec ce mysticisme enthousiastej ce dtdoin pour les remontrances des savants ft dcs itaflfs,
cette confiance impassible. Quel gue soit lejugement de Vhistoire, personne ne pourra nicr que
cettefoiprofonde nelui ait cr& dans h dix-neuvieme siecle une personnalitt d'une puissance, ct
i'une majest^ incomparable, dont Vfalat grandit encore un pont\ftcat dej& si r&narquahle par
vne dur&, dps vertns et dt$ malheurs vraiment exreptionnek. ' Comp. the, Discourses of Pius IX.,
in 2 vols,, Rome, 187!*, and the review of (jrliidsrone in the Qwirtvrly tteriew for Jun, 1875.
§ 33. THE VATICAN DECREES, CONTINUED. 153
dogma would make the breach between Oxford and Rome wider than
ever. Manning is 'more Catholic than Catholics'1 to the manor born,
as the English settlers in Ireland were more Irish than Irishmen,1 and
is altogether worthy to be the successor of Pius IX. in the chair of
St. Peter. Both these eminent and remarkable persons show how a
sincere faith in a dogma, which borders on blasphemy, may, by a strange
delusion or hallucination, be combined with rare purity and amiability
of character.
Besides the all-powerful aid of the Pope, whom no Bishop can dis-
obey without fatal consequences, the Infallibilists had the great advan-
tage of perfect unity of sentiment and aim ; while the anti-Inf allibilists
were divided among themselves, many of them being simply inoppor-
tunists. They professed to agree with the majority in principle or
practice, and to differ from them only on the subordinate question of
definability and opportunity.2 This qualified opposition had no weight
whatever with the Pope, who was as fully convinced of the opportu-
nity and necessity of the definition as he was of the dogma itself.3
And even the most advanced anti-Inf allibilists, as Kenrick, lief ele, and
Strossmayer, were too much hampered by Eomish traditionalism to plant
their foot firmly on the Scriptures, which after all must decide all ques-
tions of faith.
In the mean time a literary war on Infallibility was carried on in
the Catholic Church in Germany, France, and England, and added
to the commotion in Rome. A large number of pamphlets, written
or inspired by prominent members of the Council, appeared for and
against Infallibility. Distinguished outsiders, as Dollinger, Gratry,
Ilyacinthe, Montalembert, and others, mixed in the fight, and strength-
1 So Archbishop Kenvick, of St. Louis, characterized him in his Concio hdbenda at non
habita, Quirinus (Appendix I. p. 832) quotes from a sermon of Manning, preached at Ken-
sington, 1869, in the Pope's name, the following passage : * I claim to be the Supreme Judge
and director of the consciences of men — of the peasant that tills the field, and the prince that
sits on the throne ; of the household that lives in the shade of privacy, and the Legislature
that makes laws for kingdoms. I am the sole last Supreme Judge of what is right and wrong.'
3 Only the address of the German Bishops took openly the ground that it would be difficult
from internal reasons (viz., the contradiction of history and tradition) to proclaim Infallibility
as a dogma of revelation. J^ee Friedrich, Tayebuch, p. 1 26 ; and Frommann, Geschichte, p. 62.
3 On being asked whether he considered the definition of the dogma opportune, Pius IX.
resolutely answered, *No! but necessary.1 He complained of the opposing Bishops, that,
living among Protestants, they were infected by their freedom of thought, and had lost the
true traditional feeling. Base, p. 180,
154: THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
ened the minority.1 A confidential communication of the intellectual1
leader of the Anglo-Catholic secession revealed the remarkable fact that
some of the most serious minds were at that time oscillating between
infallibilism and skepticism, and praying to the spirits of the fathers to
deliver the Church from 'the great calamity' of a new dogma.2
1 See the literature in the next section, and in Friedberg, pp. 33-44. Comp. Frommann,
pp. 66 sqq.
8 Dr. John Henry Newman 1ms, after long silence, retracted in 1875 his letter of 1 870, which,
though confidential, found its way into public 'by permission,' and has given in his adherence
to the Vatican decrees, yet with minimizing qualifications, and in a tone of sudnoas and com-
plaint against those ultra-zealous infullibilists who 'have stated truths in the most paradoxical
forms and stretched principles till they were close upon snapping, and who at length, having
done their best to set the house on lire, leave to others the task of putting out the flame.1 (See
his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, on occasion of Gladstone's Expostulation^ Loiid. 1875,
p. 4.) Nevertheless that document deserves to be remembered for its psychological interest,
and as a part of the inner history of the infallibility dogma a few months before its birth.
* Borne,' he wrote to Bishop Ulluthorne, 'ought to be a name to lighten the heart at all
times, and a Council's proper office is, when some great heresy or other evil impends, to in-
spire hope and confidence in the faithful ; but now we have the greatest meeting which ever
has been, and that at Home, infusing into us by the accredited organs of Uomo and of its
partisans, such as the Civil ta (tlit Armenia), the Uniws, and the Tablet, little else than fear
and dismay. When we are all at rest, and have no doubts, and — at least practically, not to
say doctrinally— hold the Holy Father to be infallible, suddenly there is thunder in the clear-
est sky, and we are told to prepare for something, we know not what, to try our faith, we
know not how. No impending danger is to be averted, but a great difficulty is to be created.
Is this the proper work for an oecumenical Council ? As to myself personally, please Go<j,
I do not expect any trial at nil ; but I can not help suffering with the many souls who are
suffering, and I look with anxiety at the prospect of having to defend decisions which may
not be difficult to my own private judgment, but may be most difficult to maintain logically
in the face of historical facts. What have we done to be treated as the faithful never were
treated before ? When has a definition de fide been a luxury of devotion, and not a stern,
painful necessity? Why should an aggressive, insolent faction be allowed to "make the
heart of the just sad, whom the Lord hath not made sorrowful?" Why can not we be let
alone when we have pursued peace and thought no evil '< I assure you, my lord, some of the
truest minds are driven one way and another, and do not know whore to rest their feet— one
day determining "to give up all theology as a bad job," and recklessly to believe henceforth
almost that the Pope is impeccable, at another tempted to "believe all the worst which a
book like Janus says;" others doubting about "the capacity possessed by Bishops drawn
from all corners of the earth to judge what is fitting for European society/' and then, again,
angry with the Holy See for listening to " the flattery of a clique of Jesuits, Hedcmptorist«,
and converts." Then, again, think of the store of Pontifical scandals in the history of o. hteen
centuries, which have partly been poured forth, and partly are still to come. What Murphy
[a Protestant traveling preacher] inflicted upon us in one way, Mr. Veuillot is indirectly bring-
ing on us in another. And then, again, the blight which is falling upon the multitude of Angli-
can Eitualists, etc., who themselves, perhaps— at least their leaders — may never become Cath-
olics, but who are leavening the various English denominations and parties (far beyond their
own range) with principles and sentiments tending towards their ultimate absorption into the
Catholic Church, With these thoughts ever before me, I am continually asking myself wheth-
er I ought not to make my feelings public ; but all I do is to pray those early doctors of the
Church, whose intercession would decide the matter (Augustine, Ambrose, and Jerome, Atha-
§ 33. THE VATICAN DECREES, CONTINUED. 155
After preliminary skirmishes, the formal discussion began in earnest
in the 50th session of the General Congregation, May 13, 1870, and
lasted to the 86th General Congregation, July 16. About eighty Latin
speeches1 were delivered in the general discussion, on the schema de
Romano Pontifice, nearly one half of them on the part of the oppo-
sition, which embraced less than one fifth of the Council. When the
arguments and the patience of the assembly were pretty well exhaust-
ed, the President, at the petition of a hundred and fifty Bishops, closed
the general discussion on the third day of June. About forty more
Bishops, who had entered their names, were thus prevented from speak-
ing; but one of them, Archbishop Kenrick, of St. Louis, published his
strong argument against Infallibility in Naples.2 Then five special
discussions commenced on the proemium and the four chapters. Tor
the fifth or last discussion a hundred and twenty Bishops inscribed
their names to speak ; fifty of them were heard, until on both sides the
burden became too heavy to bear ; and, by mutual consent, a useless
and endless discussion, from mere exhaustion, ceased.'3
When the vote was taken on the whole four chapters of the Consti-
tution of the Church, July 13, 1870, in the 85th secret session of the
General Congregation (601 members being present), 451 voted Placet,
88 JSTon Placet, 62 Placet juxta modum, over 80 (perhaps 91), though
present in Rome or in the neighborhood, abstained for various reasons
from voting.4 Among the negative votes were the Prelates most dis-
nasius, Chrysostom, and Basil), to avert this great calamity. If it is God's will that the Pope's
infallibility be defined, then is it God's will to throw back "the times and moments" of that
triumph which he has destined for his kingdom, and I shall feel I have but to bow my head
to his adorable, inscrutable Providence. You have not touched upon the subject yourself, but
I think you will allow me to express to you feelings which, for the most part, I keep to my-
self. . . .' See an excellent German translation of this letter in Quirinus (p. 274, Germ, ed.)
and in Friedberg (p. 181). The English translator of Qnirinus has substituted the English
original as given here from the Standard, April 7, 1870.
1 According to Manning, but only 65 according to Friedberg, p. 47.
a Hence the title lConcio habenda at non hnbita' — prepared for speaking, but not spoken.
See the prefatory note, dated Rome, June 8, 1870.
3 Manning, Petri PriviJ. III. pp. 81, 82. He gives this representation to vindicate the
liberty of the Council ; but the minority complained of an arbitrary close of the discussion.
They held an indignation meeting in the residence of Cardinal Ranscher, and protested 'con-
tra violationem nostri juris,' but without effect. Fee the protest, with eighty-one signatures,
in Friedrich, Doc. IT. p. 879 ; comp. Frommann, Geschivhte, p. 1 74.
* See the list in Friedberg, pp. 146-149 ; also in Friedrich, Dorum. II. pp. 426 sqq. ; and
Quirinus, Letter LXVL pp. 778 sqq. Quirinus errs in counting the 91 (according to others,
85 or only 70) absentees among the 601. There were in all from 680 to 692 members present
in Borne at the time. See Fessler, p. 89 (who states the number of absentees to be ' over 80 ')y
156 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
tinguislied for learning and position, as SOHWARZENBERO, Cardinal
Prince-Archbishop of Prague; RAUSOHER, Cardinal Prince- Archbishop
of Vienna; DARBOY, Archbishop of Paris; MATTIIIKIT, Cardinal- Arch-
bishop of Besangon; G-INOULHIAC, Archbishop of Lyons; DUPANLOUP,
Bishop of Orleans ; MARET, Bishop of Sura (i. p.) ; SIMOK, Archbishop
of Gran and Primate of Hungary; HAYNALD, Archbishop of Kaloc-
sa ; FORSTER, Prince-Bishop of Breslau ; SOIIERR, Archbishop of Mu-
nich; KETTELER, Bishop of Mayence; HKFELE, Bishop of Rottenbnrg;
STROSSMAYER, Bishop of Bosnia and Sirmium; MACILALK, Archbishop
of Tuam ; CONNOLLY, Archbishop of Halifax ; KKNRIOK, Archbishop of
St. Louis.
On the evening of the 13th of July the minority sent a deputation,
consisting of Simor, Ginoulhiac, Scherr, Darboy, Kottolor, and Rivet,
to the Pope. After waiting an hour, they were admitted at 9 o'clock
in the evening. They asked simply for a withdrawal of the addition
to the third chapter, which assigns to the Pope the exclusive posses-
sion of all ecclesiastical powers, and for the insertion, in the fourth
chapter, of a clause limiting his infallibility to those decisions which
he pronounces £ intwxus textwionio eccl&riarumJ Pius returned the
almost incredible answer : £ I shall do what I can, my dear sons, but I
have not yet read the scheme; I do not know what it contains.'1 He
requested Darboy, the spokesman of the deputation, to hand him the
petition in writing. Darboy promised to do so ; and added, not without
irony, that he would send with it the schema which the Deputation on
Faith and the Legates had with such culpable levity omitted to lay be-
fore his Holiness, exposing him to the risk of proclaiming in a few days
a decree he was ignorant of. Pius surprised the deputation by the
astounding assurance that the whole Church had always taught the
unconditional Infallibility of the Pope. Then Bishop Kottoler of
Mayence implored the holy Father on his knees to make some conces-
and Frommann, p. 201 . The protest of the minority to the Pope, July 1 7, states the number
of voters in the same way, except that 70, instead of 1)1 or 85, is given as the number of absen-
tees: 'Notum est Sanctittiti Vestrce, 88 Patres foisne, qui, consdentia urgent e vt amore s.Ec.-
cksice permoti, suffragium snum per verba NON PLACET emiserunt; (12 a/frff, qm suffragati aunt
per verla PLACET JUXTA MODUM, denique 70 cirdter qui a conyrfiffatione atifttwunt atque a
sujfragio emittendo abstinuerunt. Hie accedunt et alii, qui, injirmitatihus aut gravioribus
rationihus ducti, ad suas dioeceses r ever si suntS
1 He spoke in French: 'Jeferai mon possible, mes chersfils, metis je n'ai pas encore lu h
f je ne sais pas ce gu'il contient.1 Qidrinus, Letter LXIX. p. 800.
§ 33. THE VATICAN DECREES, CONTINUED. 157
sion for the peace and unity of the Church.1 This prostration of the
proudest of the German prelates made some impression. Pius dis-
missed the deputation in a hopeful temper. But immediately after-
wards Manning and Senestrey (Bishop of Regensburg) strengthened his
faith, and frightened him by the warning that, if he made any conces-
sion, he would be disgraced in history as a second Honorius.
In the secret session on the 16th of July, on motion of some Spanish
Bishops, an addition was inserted **non autem ex oonsensu eodesicej
which makes the decree still more obnoxious.2 On the same day Car-
dinal Rauscher, in a private audience, made another attempt to induce
the Pope to yield, but was told, ' It is too late.'
On the 17th of July fifty-six Bishops sent a written protest to the
Pope, declaring that nothing had occurred to change their conviction
as expressed in their negative vote ; on the contrary, they were con-
firmed in it; yet filial piety and reverence for the holy Father would
not permit them to vote N"on Placet, openly and in his face, in a matter
which so intimately concerned his person, and that therefore they had
1 Quirinus, Letter LXIX. p. 80 1, gave, a few days afterwards, from direct information, the
following fresh and graphic description of this interesting scene : * Bishop Ketteler then came
forward, flung himself on his knees before the Pope, and entreated for several minutes that
the Father of the Catholic world would make some concession to restore peace and her lost
unity to the Church and the Episcopate. It was a peculiar spectacle to witness these two
men, of kindred and yet widely diverse nature, in such an attitude — the one prostrate on the
ground before the other. Pius is " lotus teres atque rotundus," firm and immovable, smooth
and hard as marble, infinitely self-satisfied intellectually, mindless and ignorant ; without an$
understanding of the mental conditions and needs of mankind, without any notion of the
character of foreign nations, but as credulous as a nun, and, above all, penetrated through
and through with reverence for his own person as the organ of the Holy Ghost, and therefore
an absolutist from head to heel, and filled with the thought, "I, and none beside me." He
knows and believes that the Holy Virgin, with whom he is on the most intimate terms, will
indemnify him for the loss of land and subjects by means of the Infallibility doctrine, and the
restoration of the Papal dominion over states and peoples as well as over churches. He also
believes firmly in the miraculous emanations from the sepulchre of St. Peter. At the feet
of this man the German Bishop flung himself, "ipso Papa papalior^ a zealot for the ideal
greatness and unapproachable dignity of the Papacy, and, at the same time, inspired by the
aristocratic feeling of a Westphnlian nobleman and the hierarchical self-consciousness of a
Bishop and successor of the ancient chancellor of the empire, while yet he is surrounded by
the intellectual atmosphere of Germany, and, with all his firmness of belief, is sickly with the
pallor of thought, and inwardly struggling with the terrible misgiving that, after all, historical
facts are right, and that the ship of the Cbr&z, though for the moment it proudly rides the
waves with its sails swelled by a favorable wind, will be wrecked on that rock at last.'
9 Quirinus, p. 804: 'Thus the Infallibilist decree, as it is now to be received under anathema
by the Catholic world, is an eminently Spanish production, as is fitting for a doctrine which
was born and reared under the shadow of the Inquisition.7
158 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
resolved to return forthwith to their flocks, which had already too long
been deprived of their presence, and were now filled with apprehensions
of war, Sehwarzenberg, Matthieu, Simor, and Darboy head the list
of signers.1 On the evening of the same day not only the fifty-six
signers, but sixty additional members of the opposition departed from
Home, promising to each other to make their future conduct dependent
on mutual understanding.
This was the turning-point: the opposition broke down by its own
act of cowardice. They ought to have stood like men on the post of
duty, and repeated their negative vote according to their honest convic-
tions. They could thus have prevented the passage of this momentous
decree, or at all events shorn it of its oecumenical weight, and kept it
open for future revision and possible reversal. But they left Rome at
the very moment when their presence was most needed, and threw an
easy victory into the lap of the majority.
"When, therefore, the fourth public session was held, on the memora-
ble 18th of July (Monday), there were but 535 Fathers present, and of
these all voted Placet, with the exception of two, viz.. Bishop Iliccio, of
Cajazzo, in Sicily, and Bishop Fitzgerald, of Little .Rock, Arkansas, who
had the courage to vote If on Placet, but immediately, before the close
of the session, submitted to the voice of the Council. In this way a
moral unanimity was secured as great as in the first Council of Nic«ea,
where likewise two refused to subscribe the Nicene Creed. < What a
wise direction of Providence,' exclaimed the Civiltd cattolica, < 535 yeas
against 2 nays. Only two nays, therefore almost total unanimity ; and
yet two nays, therefore full liberty of the Council. How vain are all
attacks against the oecumenical character of this most beautiful of all
Councils P
After the vote the Pope confirmed the decrees and canons on the
Constitution of the Church of Christ, and added from his own inspira-
tion the assurance that the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff did
not suppress but aid, not destroy but build up, and formed the best pro-
tection of the rights and interests of the Episcopate.2
1 See the protest in IViedberg, p. 622. Comp. Prommann, p. 207.
* lSumma ista Romani Pont(fic,is aitctoritw, Venerabiles Fratres, non opprimit $ed adjuvat,
non destruit sed (Rdificat, et swpissime confirvnat in dignitate, unit in chttrit&tfy et JFratrwn,
scilicet Episcoporum, jura fir mat atgue tuetur. Ideoque illi, qui rntnc judicant in commotion^
§ 33. THE VATICAN DECREES, CONTINUED. 159
The days of the two most important public sessions of the Vatican
Council, namely the first and the last, were the darkest and stormiest
which Eome saw from Dec. 8, 1869, to the 18th of July, 1870. The
Episcopal votes and the Papal proclamation of the new dogma were
accompanied by flashes of lightning and claps of thunder from the skies,
and so great was the darkness which spread over the Church of St. Peter,
that the Pope could not read the decree of his own Infallibility without
the artificial light of a candle.1 This voice of nature was variously in-
sciant, non esse in commotione Dominum. Meminerint, quod paucis dbhinc annis, oppositam
tenentes sententiam, abundaverunt in sensu Nostro, et in sensu major is partis hujus amplissimi
Consessus, sed tune judicaverunt in spiritu aura lenis. Numquid in eodem judicio judicando
duce opposite^ possunt exist ere conscientice ? Absit. Illuminet ergo Deus sensus et cor da ; et
quoniam Ipsefacit mirabilia magna solus, illuminet sensus et corda, ut omnes accedere possint
ad sinum Patris, Christi Jesu in terns indigni Vicarii, gui eos amat, eos diligit, et exoptat
unum esse cum illis; et ita simul in vinculo charitatis conjuncti pr cellar e possimus prcelia
Domini, ut non solum non irrideant nos inimici nostri, sed timeant potius, et aliquando arma
maliticB cedant in conspectu veritatis, sicque omnes cum D. Augustino dicere valeant: "Tv
vocasti me in admirabile lumen tuwn, et ecce video" '
1 Quirinus, Letter LXIX. p. 809. A Protestant eye-witness, Prof. Ripley, thus described
the scene in a letter from Eome, published in the New York Tribune (of which he is one of
the editors) for Aug. 11, 1870 : ' Rome, July 19.— Before leaving Rome I send you a report
of the last scene of that absurd comody called the (Ecumenical Vatican Council. ... It is
at least a remarkable coincidence that the opening and closing sessions of the Council were
inaugurated with fearful storms, and that the vigil of the promulgation of the dogma was cele-
brated with thunder and lightning throughout the whole of the night. On the 8th of last
December I was nearly drowned by the floods of rain, which came down in buckets ; yester-
day morning I went down in rain, and under a frowning sky which menaced terrible storms
later in the day. . . . Kyrie eleison we heard as soon as the mass was said, and the whole
multitude joined in singing the plaintive measure of the Litany of the Saints, and then with
equal fervor was sung Veni Creator, which was followed by the voice of a secretary reading
in a high key the dogma. At its conclusion the names of the Fathers were called over, and
Placet after Placet succeeded ad nauseam. But what a storm burst over the church at this
moment ! The lightning flashed and the thunder pealed as we have not heard it this season
before. Every Placet seemed to be announced by a flash and terminated by a clap of thu»
der. Through the cupolas the lightning entered, licking, as it were, the very columns of th|
Baldachino over the tomb of St. Peter, and lighting up large spaces on the pavement. Sure,
God was there — but whether approving or disproving what was going on, no mortal man can
say. Enough that it was a remarkable coincidence, and so it struck the minds of all who
were present. And thus the roll was called for one hour and a half, with this solemn accom-
paniment, and then the result of the voting was taken to the Pope. The moment had arrived
when he was to declare himself invested with the attributes of God — nay, a God upon earth.
Looking from a distance into the hall, which was obscured by the tempest, nothing was visible
but the golden mitre of the Pope, and so thick was the darkness that a servitor was compelled
to bring a lighted candle and hold it by his side to enable him to read the formula by which
he deified himself. And then— what is that indescribable noise ? Is it the raging of the storm
above ? — the pattering of hail-stones ? It approaches nearer, and for a minute I most seri-
ously say that I could not understand what that swelling sound was until I saw a cloud of
white handkerchiefs waving in the air. The Fathers had begun with clapping — they were
160 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
terpreted, either as a condemnation of Gallicanism and liberal Cathol-
icism, or as a divine attestation of the dogma like that which accom-
panied the promulgation of the law from Mount Sinai, or as an evil
omen of impending calamities to the Papacy.
And behold, the day after the proclamation of the dogma. Napoleon
III., the political ally and supporter of Pius IX., unchained the furies of
war, which in a few weeks swept away the Empire of France and the
temporal throne of the infallible Pope. His own subjects forsook him,
and almost unanimously voted for a new sovereign, whom he had ex-
communicated as the worst enemy of the Church. A German Empire
arose from victorious battle-fields, and Protestantism sprung to the po-
litical and military leadership of Europe. About half a dozen Prot-
estant Churches have since been organized in Rome, where none was
tolerated before, except outside of the walls or in the house of some
foreign embassador; a branch of the Bible Society was established,
which the Pope in his Syllabus denounces as a post ; and a public de-
bate was held in which even the presence of Peter at Home was called
in question. History records no more striking example of swift retri-
bution of criminal ambition. Once before the Papacy was shaken to
its base at the very moment when it felt itself most secure : Leo X. had
hardly concluded the fifth and last Lateran Council in March, 1517,
with a celebration of victory, when an humble monk in the North of
Europe sounded the key-note of the great Reformation.
What did the Bishops of the minority do ? They all submitted, even
those who had been most vigorous in opposing, not only the opportu-
nity of the definition, but the dogma itself. Some hesitated long, but
yielded at last to the heavy pressure. Cardinal Rauscher, of Vienna,
published the decree already in August, and afterwards withdrew his
powerful ' Observations on the Infallibility of the Church ' from the
market ; regarding this as an act of glorious self-denial for the wel-
fare of the Church. Cardinal Schwarzenberg, of Prague, waited with
the publication till Jan. 11, 1871, and shifted the responsibility upon his
the fuglemen to the crowd who took up the notes and signs of rejoicing until the church of
God was converted into a theatre for the exhibition of human passions. " Viva Pio Nono /"
"Viva il Papa, Infallibile /" "Viva il trionfo dei CattolieiJ" were shouted by this priestly
assembly ; and again another round they had ; and yet another was attempted as soon as tho
Te Deum had been suns: and the benediction had been given.'
§ 33. THE VATICAN DECREES, CONTINUED. 161
theological advisers. Bishop Hef ele, of Kottenburg, who has forgotten
more about the history of Councils than the infallible Pope ever knew,
after delaying till April 10, 1871, submitted, not because he had changed
his conviction, but, as he says, because ' the peace and unity of the
Church is so great a good that great and heavy personal sacrifices may
be made for it ;' i. e., truth must be sacrificed to peace. Bishop Maret,
who wrote two learned volumes against Papal Infallibility and in de-
fense of Gallicanism, declared in his retractation that he ' wholly re-
jects every thing in his work which is opposed to the dogma of the
Council,' and ' withdraws it from sale.5 Archbishop Kenrick yielded,
but has not refuted his Goncio habenda at non habita, which remains
an irrefragable argument against the new dogma. Even Strossmayer,
the boldest of the bold in the minority, lost his courage, and keeps
his peace. Darboy died a martyr in the revolt of the communists of
Paris, in April, 1871. In a conversation with Dr. Michaud, Yicar of
St. Madeleine, who since seceded from Eome, he counseled external
and official submission, with a mental reservation, and in the hope of
better times. His successor, Msgr. Guibert, published the decrees a
year later (April, 1872), without asking the permission of the head of
the French Eepublic. Of those opponents who, though not members
of the Council, carried as great weight as any Prelate, Montalembert
died during the Council; Newman kept silence; P&re Gratry, who
had declared and proved that the question of Honorius £ is totally gan-
grened by fraud,' wrote from his death-bed at Montreux, in Switzer-
land (Feb. 1872), to the new Archbishop of Paris, that he submitted to
the Vatican Council, and effaced c every thing to the contrary he may
have written.'1
It is said that the adhesion of the minority Bishops was extorted by
the threat of the Pope not to renew their 'quinquennial faculties'
(facilitates guinquennales), that is, the Papal licenses renewed every
five years, permitting them to exercise extraordinary episcopal func-
tions which ordinarily belong to the Pope, as the power of absolving
from heresy, schism, apostasy, secret crime (except murder), from vows,
duties of fasting, the power of permitting the reading of prohibited
1 See details on the reception and publication of the Vatican decrees in Friedberg, pp. 53
gqq.? 775 sqq. ; Frommann, pp. 215-230 ; on Gratiy, the Annales de Philosophie
Sept. 1871, p. 236,
162 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
books (for the purpose of refutation), marrying within prohibited de-
grees, etc.1
But, aside from this pressure, the following considerations sufficiently
explain the fact of submission.
1. Many of the dissenting Bishops were professedly anti-Infallibilists,
not from principle, but only from subordinate considerations of expe-
diency, because they apprehended that the definition would provoke
the hostility of secular governments, and inflict great injury on Catholic
interests, especially in Protestant countries. Events have since proved
that their apprehension was well founded.
2. All Roman Bishops are under an oath of allegiance to the Pope,
which binds them ' to preserve, defend, increase, and advance the rights,
honors, privileges, and authority of the holy Eoman Church, of our lord
the Pope, and his successors.'
3. The minority Bishops defended Episcopal infallibility against Pa-
pal infallibility. They claimed for themselves what they denied to the
Pope. Admitting the infallibility of an oecumenical Council, and for-
feiting by their voluntary absence on the day of voting the right of
their protest, they must either on their own theory accept the decision
of the Council, or give up their theory, cease to be Eoman Catholics,
and run the risk of a new schism.
At the same time this submission is an instructive lesson of the fear-
ful spiritual despotism of the Papacy, which overrules the stubborn
facts of history and the sacred claims of individual conscience. For
the facts so clearly and forcibly brought out before and during the
Council by such men as Kenrick, Hef ele, Eauscher, Maret, Schwarzen-
berg, and Dupanloup, have not changed, and can never be undone. On
the one hand we find the results of a life-long, conscientious, and thor-
ough study of the most learned divines of the Eoman Church, on
the other ignorance, prejudice, perversion, and defiance of Scripture
and tradition ; on the one hand we have history shaping theology, on
the other theology ignoring or changing history; on the one hand the
just exercise of reason, on the other blind submission, which destroys
reason and conscience. But truth must and will prevail at last.
1 See the article Facultaten, in WBTZBB und WBLTB'S Kirchenkxikon oder ISncyklop. der
katholischen 2%eo%ie,Vol. III. pp. 879 sqq.
§ 34. PAPAL INFALLIBILITY EXPLAINED AND TESTED. 163
§ 34 PAPAL INFALLIBILITY EXPLAINED, AND TESTED BY TRADITION AND
SCRIPTURE.
Literature.
I. FOB INFALLIBILITY.
The older defenders of Infallibility are chiefly BELLABMIN, BALLBBINI, LITTA, ALPHONS »B LIGTTOBI
(whom the Pope raised to the dignity of a doctor ecclesice, March 11,1872), Card. OBSI, PEBBONB, and JO-
SEPH COUNT DB MATSTKE (Sardinian statesman, d. at Turin Feb. 26, 1821, author of Du Pape, 1819 ; new
edition, Paris, 1843, with the Homeric motto : el? Koipavos &rr«).
During and after the Vatican Council : the works of Archbishops MANNING and DEOHAMPS, already
quoted, pp. 134, 135.
Jos. CABDONI (Archbishop of Edessa, in partibus) : JBlucubratio de dogmatica Romani Pontifids Infal-
libilitate ejusque Definibilitate, Rora« (typis Civilitatis Cattolicse), 1870 (May, 174 pp.). The chief work
on the Papal side, clothed with a semi-official character.
HBBMANN RUMP : Die ffnfehlbarkeit des Papatea und die Stellung der in Detttachland verbreiteten theolo-
gischen Lehrbucher zu dieser Lehre, Munster, 1870 (173 pp.).
FBANZ FBIEDIIOFP (Prof, at Munster) : Gegen-Erwagungen uber die pdpstliche Unfehlbarkeit, Munster,
1869 (21 pp.). Superficial.
FLOB. RIRSS and KABL YON WBBKB (Jesuits) : Das Oekum. Condi. Stimmen aw Maria-Loach, NeueFolge,
No. X. Diepupstliche Unfehlbarkeit und Aer alte Glaube der Kirche, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1870 (110 pp.).
G. BIOKEL: Qr&ndefur die Unfehlbarkeit des Kircheno'berhauptea neb8t Widerlegung derMnw&rfe, Mun-
ster, 1870.
Rev. P. WKNINGEB (Jesuit) : LHnfailliUlite du Pape devant la ration et Vecriture, Us papea et les con-
dies, left pPres ft les theologiens, Us rote et Us empereura. Translated from the German into French by
P. BMLET. (Highly spoken of by Pius IX. in a brief to Abb6 Bel<5t, Nov. 17, 1869 ; see Friedberg, 1. c.
p. 487. Weninger wrote besides several pamphlets on Infallibility in German, Innsbruck, 1841 ; Graz,
1863 ; in English, New York and Cincinnati, 1868. Archbishop Kenrick, in his Concio, speaks of him as
'a pious and extremely zealous but ignorant man,' whom he honored with ' the charity of silence' when
requested to recommend one of his books.)
Widerlegung der vier unter die Vdter dea Concils vertheilten JSrochuren gegen die Vnfehlbarkeit (transl.
of Animadveraionea in quatuor contra Romani Pontiflda infallibilitatem ed.itoa libelloa), Munster, 1870.
Bishop Jos. FESSLBB: Die wahre und diefalsche Unfehlbarkeit der Pupate (against Prof, von Schulte),
Wien, 1871.
Bishop KBTTELBB: Dos unfehlbare Lehramt dea Papatea, noch der Entachddung dea Vatfconiachen Con-
oils, Mainz, 1871, 3te Aufl.
M. J. SOHEKBEN : Schulte und Dnlliiiger, gegen doa Condi. Kritiache Beleuchtomg, etc., Regensburg, 1871.
AM EDBK DE MABGERIE : Lettre au JR. P. Gratry aur le Pape Honoriua et le Breviaire Remain, Nancy, 1870
PAUL BOTTALA (S. J.) : Pope Honoriua "before the Tribunal of Reason and History t London, 1S68.
II. AGAINST INFALLIBILITY.
(a) By Members of the Council.
Mgr. H. L. 0. MABET (Bishop of Sura, in part., Canon of St Denis and Dean of the Theological Faculty
in Paris) : Du CondU general et de la paix religieuae, Paris, 1869, 2 Tom. (pp. 554 and 555). An elaborate
defense of Gallicanism ; since revoked by the author, and withdrawn from sale.
PBTEB RIOUABD KENBIOK (Archbishop of St. Louis) : Concio in Condlio Vaticono habendaat non hdbita,
Neapoli (typis fratrum de Angelis in via Pellegrini 4), 1870. Reprinted in Friedrich, Docwmenta, I. pp. 187-
226. An English translation in L. W. Bacon's An Inside View of the Vatican Council, New York, pp. 90-166.
QTTJBSTIO (no place or date of publication). A very able Latin dissertation occasioned and distributed
(perhaps partly prepared) by Bishop KBTTELBB, of Mayence, during the Council. It was printed but not
published in Switzerland, in 1870, and reprinted in Friedrlch, Documenta, I. pp. 1-128.
La liberte du Condle et Vinfaillibilitf. Written or inspired by DABBOY, Archbishop of Paris. Only fifty
copies were printed, for distribution among the Cardinals. Reprinted in Friedrich, Documenta, I. pp.
129-186.
Card.RAtrsoEEB: Observation^} qucedam de infallibilitatia eecUaice aubjecto, Neapoli and Vindobonse.
1870 (83 pp.).
De Summi Pontifida infallibilitate peraonali, Neapoli, 1870 (32 pp.). Written by Prof. SALESIUSMAYBB,
and distributed in the Council by Cardinal Schwarzenberg.
JOS.DB HBFBLB (Bishop of Rottenburg, formerly Prof, at Tubingen): Causa Honorii Papa, Neap. 1870
(pp.28). The same: Honoriua und das sechste allgemeine Condi (with an appendix against Pennachi,
43 pp.),' Tubingen, 1870. English translation, with introduction, by Dr. HRNBY B. SMITH, in the Preaby-
terion ^Quarterly and Princeton Review, New York, for April, 1872, pp. 273 sqq. Against Hefele comp.
JOB. Paw* Aom (Prof, of Church History in Rome) : De Honorii /. Pontifida Romani causa in Condlio VL
164: THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
(b) By Catholics, not Members of the Council.
JANTIH : The Pope and the Council, 1801). See above, p. 134.
firwugungen far die BiscJwfv d&s Conciliums I'tber die Frage dfr pupstlichen Unfehlbarke.it, Get, 1869.
Dritte Anfl. MQncheu. [By J. VON DOLUNOKU.]
J. VON DOLUNOKB: Einige Wortc. liber die. UnfehlbarkeitsadreHse., etc., Miincben, INTO.
Jos. H. KKINKMNS (Prof, of Church History in Broalan) : Ueber puptttiiche Vnft'hlbarkeit, Munehen, 1STO.
CLEMICNS SOUMITZ (Oath. Priest) : 1st der Papst unfehlbar? Aw Deutsehlaiids und den P. Deharbe Cate-
chismen beantworte.t, Miinchen, 1870.
J. Pu. Rirrisa VON SOIIULTK (Prof, in Prague, now in Bonn) : Dan Unffhlbarbrtte-Dewt nom IK Juli
1870 at// seine Verbindlichkeit gepruft, Prague, 1870. Die Marht dcr r<"mi. Ptipste fiber /r'tfrtfcn, Lander,
Volker, etc. fteit Oretjor VII. zur Wurdigung Hirer Unfehlbarkeit beleuchtet, etc., 2d edition, Prague. The
same, translated into English (The Power of the Roman Popes over Princes, etc.), by Alfred Somera [a
brother of Schulto], Adelaide, 1871.
A. GBATUY (Priest of the Oratoiro and Member of the French Academy) : Four Letters to the /iinhop of
Orleans (Dnpanlonp) aw<i the Archbishop ofMalines (Dechamps), in French, PuriH,l«70; ncvcrnl editions,
also translated into Gorman, English, etc. These learned and eloquent let torn gave rise to violent con-
troversies. They were denounced by several Bishops, arid prohibited in their dioccK'ft ; approved by
others, and by Montalembcrt. The Pope praised the opponents. Against him wrote DochatnpH (Three
Letters to Gratry, in French ; German translation, Mayence, 1870) and A. de Margorie. Gratry recanted
on his death-bed.
P. LB PAGK RENOTIF: The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, London, 1808.
ANTONIO MAOBABSI : Lo Schema sull* infallibilitd personale del Jtmnano Pantejtef, Alessimdrla, 1S70.
Ztella pretesa infallibilitd personale del Romano Pontefice, 2d cd. Firenze, 1870 (anonymoun, HO pp.).
J. A. B. LUTTRRBROX: Die Clementinen und ihr yerMltnisszum Vnfehlbarkeitsdoyvna, GienHCti, 1872 (i>p. 8B),
JOSKPII LANOKN (Old Catholic Prof, in Bonn) : Das raticanisehe- Doynua von darn ffnlwrtml-ttyrftiGoniat wid
der Unfehlbarkeit des Papstes in s. Verh. zur exeg. Ueberlteferung vom 7 bis zum Wtcn Ja/irh. 3 PartB.
Bonn, 1871-78.
The sinlessness of the Virgin Mary and the personal infallibility of
the Pope are the characteristic dogmas of modern Romanism, the two
test dogmas which must decide the ultimate fate of this system. .Both
were enacted under the same Pope, and both faithfully reflect his char-
acter. Both have the advantage of logical consistency from certain
premises, and seem to be the very perfection of the Romish form of
piety and the Romish principle of authority. Both rest on pious fiction
arid fraud ; both present a refined idolatry by clothing a pure humble
woman and a mortal sinful man with divine attributes. The dogma
of the Immaculate Conception, which exempts the Virgin Mary from
sin and guilt, perverts Christianism into Marian ism ; the dogma of In-
fallibility, which exempts the Bishop of Rome from error, resolves
Catholicism into Papalism, or the Church into the Pope. The wor-
ship of a woman is virtually substituted for the worship of Christ, and
a man-god in Rome for the God-Man in heaven. This is a severe
judgment, but a closer examination will sustain it.
The dogma of the Immaculate Conception, being confined to the
sphere of devotion, passed into the modern Roman creed without seri-
ous difficulty; but the dogma of Papal Infallibility, which involves a
question of absolute power, forms an epoch in the history of Roman-
ism, and created the greatest commotion and a new secession. It is
in its very nature the most fundamental and most comprehensive of
§ 34. PAPAL INFALLIBILITY EXPLAINED AND TESTED. 165
of all dogmas. It contains the whole system in a nutshell. It con-
stitutes a new rule of faith. It is the article of the standing or fall-
ing Church. It is the direct antipode of the Protestant principle of the
absolute supremacy and infallibility of the Holy Scriptures. It estab-
lishes a perpetual divine oracle in the Vatican. Every Catholic may
hereafter say, I believe — not because Christ, or the Bible, or the Church,
but — because the infallible Pope has so declared and commanded.
Admitting this dogma, we admit not only the whole body of doctrines
contained in the Tridentine standards, but all the official Papal bulls,
including the mediaeval monstrosities of the Syllabus (1864), the con-
demnation of Jansenism, the bull c Utiam SanGtam* of Boniface VIII.
(1302), which, under pain of damnation, claims for the Pope the double
sword, the secular as well as the spiritual, over the whole Christian
world, and the power to depose princes and to absolve subjects from
their oath of allegiance.1 The past is irreversibly settled, and in all
future controversies on faith and morals we must look to the same
unerring tribunal in the Vatican. Even oecumenical Councils are
superseded hereafter, and would be a mere waste of time and
strength.
On the other hand, if the dogma is false, it involves a blasphemous
assumption, and makes the nearest approach to the fulfillment of
St. Paul's prophecy of the man of sin, who fi as God sitteth in the
temple of God, showing himself off that he is God' (2 Thess. ii. 4).
Let us first see what the dogma does not mean, and what it does
mean.
It does not mean that the Pope is infallible in his private opinions
on theology and religion. As a man, he may be a heretic (as Liberius,
Honorius, and John XXII.), or even an unbeliever (as John XXIII.,
1 This bull has been often disowned by Catholics (e. g., by the Universities of Sorbonne,
Louvain, Alcala, Salamanca, when officially asked by Mr. Pitt, Prime Minister of Great Brit-
ain, 1788, also by Martin John Spalding, Archbishop of Baltimore, in his Lectures on
Evidences, 1866), and, to some extent, even by Pius IX. (see Friedberg, p. 718), but it is
unquestionably official, and was renewed and approved by the fifth Lateran Council, Dec.
It), 1516. Paul III. and Pius V. acted upon it, the former in excommunicating and depos-
ing Henry VIII. of England, the latter in deposing Queen Elizabeth, exciting her subjects
to rebellion, and urging Philip of Spain to declare war against her (see the Bullarium Rom.,
Camden, Burnet, ITroude, etc.). The Papal Syllabus sanctions it by implication, in No. 23,
which condemns as an error the opinion that Roman Pontiffs have exceeded the limits of
their power.
166 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
and, perhaps, Leo X,), and yet, at the same time, infallible as Pope,
after the fashion of Balaam and Kaiphas.
Nor does it mean that infallibility extends beyond the proper sphere
of religion and the Church. The Pope may be ignorant of science and
literature, and make grave mistakes in his political administration, or
be misinformed on matters of fact (unless necessarily involved in doc-
trinal decisions), and yet be infallible in defining articles of faith.1
Infallibility does not imply impeccability. And yet freedom from
error and freedom from sin are so nearly connected in men's minds
that it seems utterly impossible that such moral monsters as Alexander
VI. and those infamous Popes who disgraced humanity during the
Roman pornocracy in the tenth and eleventh centuries, should have
been vicars of Jesus Christ and infallible organs of the Holy Ghost
If the inherent infallibility of the visible Church logically necessitates
the infallibility of the visible head, it is difficult to see why the same
logic should not with equal conclnsiveness derive the personal holiness
of the head from the holiness of the body.
On the other hand, the dogma does mean that all official utterances
of the Roman Pontiff addressed to the Catholic Church on matters of
Christian faith and duty are infallibly true, and nuist be accepted with
the same faith as the word of the living God. They are not simply
final in the sense in which all decisions of an absolute government or
a supreme court of justice are final until abolished or superseded by
other decisions,2 but they are irreformable, and can never be revoked.
This infallibility extends over eighteen centuries, and is a special privi-
lege conferred by Christ upon Peter, and through him upon all his legiti-
mate successors. It belongs to every Pope from Clement to Pius IX.,
and to every Papal bull addressed to the Catholic world. It is pcr-
1 Pope Pius IX. started as a political reformer, and set in motion that revolution which,
notwithstanding his subsequent reactionary course, resulted in the unification of Italy and
the loss of the States of the Church, against which he now so bitterly protests.
3 In this general sense Joseph de Maistre explains infallibility to be the name in the spir-
itual order that sovereignty means in the civil order : c£'tm et Vautre, exprimpnt cette haute
puissance qui Us domine toutes, dont toutes les autres dfrivent, qui gourtrne et ricst pas gou-
verne'e, quijuge et n'e$tpasjuge*e. Quand nous disons que VKglise est infaiUibh, nous ne de-
mandons pour elte, il est lien essential de I'observer, aucun privilege particulier ; nous damandons
seulement qu'elle jouisse du droit commun a toutes les souverainetfa possible qui toutes ayixsent
nteessairement comme infaillibles ; car tout gouvernement est absolu; et du moment ou fon peut
lui register sous prttexte cCerreur ou dj injustice, il n'existe plus.1 Du Pape, ch. i., pp. 15, 1C.
§ 34. PAPAL INFALLIBILITY EXPLAINED AND TESTED. 167
sonal, i. e., inherent in Peter and the Popes ; it is independent, and
needs no confirmation from the Church or an oecumenical Council,
either preceding or succeeding; its decrees are binding, and can not be
rejected without running the risk of eternal damnation.1
Even within the narrow limits of the Vatican decision there is room
for controversy on the precise meaning of the figurative term ex cathe-
dra loqui, and the extent of faith and morals, viz., whether Infallibil-
ity includes only the supernatural order of revealed truth and duty, or
also natural and political duties, and questions of mere history, such as
Peter's residence in Borne, the number of oecumenical Councils, the
teaching of Jansen and Quesnel, and other disputed facts closely con-
nected with dogmas. But the main point is clear enough. The Ultra-
montane theory is established, Gallicanisrn is dead and buried.
TJltramontanism and Gallicanism.
The Vatican dogma is the natural completion of the Papal polity, as
the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is the completion
of the Papal cultus.
If we compare the Papal or Ultramontane theory with the Episcopal
or Galilean theory, it has the undeniable advantage of logical consist-
ency. The two systems are related to each other like monarchy and
aristocracy, or rather like absolute monarchy and limited monarchy.
The one starts from the divine institution of the Primacy (Matt. xvi. 18),
1 Archbishop Manning (Petri Privil III. pp. 112, 1 1 3) defines the doctrine of Infallibility
in this way :
* 1. The privilege of infallibility is person al, inasmuch as it attaches to the Roman Pontiff,
the successor of Peter, as a, public person, distinct from, bnt inseparably united to, the Church;
but it is not personal, in that it is attached, not to the private person, but to the primacy
' 2. It is also independent, inasmuch as it does not depend upon either the Ecclesia dozens
or the JEccfaia discern ; but it is not independent, in that it depends in all things upon the
divine head of the Church, upon the institution of the primacy by him, and upon the assist-
ance of the Holy Ghost.
*3. It is absolute, inasmuch as it can be circumscribed by no human or ecclesiastical law;
it is not absolute, in that it is circumscribed by the office of guarding, expounding, and de-
fending the deposit of revelation.
* 4. It is separate in no sense, nor can be, nor can be so called, without manifold heresy,
unless the word be taken to mean distinct. In this sense, the Roman Pontiff is distinct from
the Episcopate, and is a distinct subject of infallibility; and in the exercise of his supreme
doctrinal authority, or magisterium, he does not depend fqr the infallibility of his definitions
upon the consent or consultation of the Episcopate, but only on the divine assistance of the
Holy Ghost.'
VOL. L— M
168 THE CRKKDS OF CHRISTENDOM
and teaches the infallibility of the head ; the other starts from the di
vine institution of the Episcopate (Matt, xviii. IS), and teaches the infal-
libility of the body and the superiority of an oecumenical Council over
the Pope. Conceding once the infallibility of the collective Episcopate,
we must admit, as a consequence, the infallibility of the Primacy, which
represents the Episcopate, and forms its visible and permanent centre. If
the body of the teaching Church can never err, the head can not err; and,
vice vena, if the head is liable to error, the body can not be free from
error. The Gallican theory is an untenable via media. It secures only
a periodic and intermittent infallibility, which reveals itself in an (ecu-
menical Council, and then relapses into a quiescent state ; but the Ultra-
montane theory teaches an unbroken, ever living, and ever active infalli-
bility, which alone can fully answer the demands of an absolute authority.
To refute Papal infallibility is to refute also Episcopal infallibility;
for the higher includes the lower. The Vatican Council is the best argu-
ment against the infallibility of oecumenical Councils, for it sanctioned
a fiction, in open and irreconcilable contradiction to older (Ecumenical
Councils, which not only assumed the possibility of Papal fallibility,
but actually condemned a Pope as a heretic. The fifth Lateran Coun
cil (1512) declared the decrees of the Council of Pisa (1409) null and
void; the Council of Florence denied the validity of the Council of
Basle, and this denied the validity of the former. The Council of Con-
stance condemned and burned John II us for teaching evangelical doc-
trines; and this fact forced upon Luther, at the disputation with Eck at
Leipzig, the conviction that even (ecumenical Councils may err. Home
itself has rejected certain canons of Constantinople and Chalcedon,
which put the Pope on a par with the Patriarch of Constantinople ; and
a strict construction of the Papal theory would rule out the old oecu-
menical Councils, because they were not convened nor controlled by the
Pope; while the Greek Church rejects all Councils which wore purely
Latin.
The Bible makes no provision and has no promise for an oecumenical
Council.1 The Church existed and flourished for more than three hun-
dred years before such a Council was heard of. Large assemblies are
1 The Synod of Jerusalem, composed of Apostles, Klders, and Brethren, and legislating in
favor of Christian liberty, differs very widely from a purely hierarchical Council, which ex-
cludes Elders and Brethren, and imposes new burdens upon the conscience.
§ 34. PAPAL INFALLIBILITY EXPLAINED AND TESTED. 169
often ruled by passion, intrigue, and worldly ambition (remember the
complaints of Gregory of Nazianzum on the Synods of the Nicene age).
Majorities are not necessarily decisive in matters of faith. Christ prom-
ised to be even with two or three who are gathered in his name (Matt,
xviii. 20). Elijah and the seven thousand who had not bowed the
knee to Baal were right over against the great mass of the people of
Israel. Athanasius versus mundum represented the truth, and the
world versus Athanasium was in error during the ascendency of
Arianism. In the eighteenth century the Church, both Catholic and
Protestant, was under the power of infidelity, and true Christianity
had to take refuge in small communities. Augustine maintained that
one Council may correct another, and attain to a more perfect knowl-
edge of truth. The history of the Church is unintelligible without the
theory of progressive development, which implies many obstructions
and temporary diseases. All the attributes of the Church are subject
to the law of gradual expansion and growth, and will not be finally
complete till the second coming of our Lord.
Papal Infallibility and Personal Responsibility.
The Christian Church, as a divine institution, can never fail and
never lose the truth. Christ has pledged his Spirit and life-giving
presence to his people to the end of time, and even to two or three of
his humblest disciples assembled in his name ; yet they are not on
that account infallible. He gave authority in matters of discipline to
every local Church (Matt, xviii. 17) ; and yet no one claims infallibility
to every congregation. The Holy Spirit will always guide believers into
the truth, and the unerring Word of God can never perish. But local
churches, like individuals, may fall into error, and be utterly destroyed
from the face of the earth. The true Church of Christ always makes
progress, and will go on conquering and to conquer to the end of the
world. But the particular churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexan-
dria, Constantinople, Asia Minor, and North Africa, where once the
Apostles and St. Augustine taught, have disappeared, or crumbled into
ruin, or have been overrun by the false prophet.
The truth will ever be within the reach of the sincere inquirer
wherever the gospel is preached and the sacraments are rightly admin-
istered. God has revealed himself plainly enough for all purposes of
170 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
salvation; and yet not so plainly as to supersede the necessity of faith,
and to resolve Christianity into a mathematical demonstration. He
has given us a rational mind to think and to judge, and a free will to
accept or to reject. Christian faith is no blind submission, but an intel-
ligent assent It implies anxiety to inquire as well as willingness to
receive. We are expressly directed to ' prove all things, and to hold fast
that which is good3 (1 Thess. v. 21) ; to try the spirits whether they are
of God (1 John iv. 1), and to refuse obedience even to an angel from
heaven if he preach a different gospel (Gal. i. 8). The Berwan
Jews are commended as being more noble than those of Thessalonica,
because they received the Word with all readiness of mind, and yet
searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so (Acts xvii.
11). It was from the infallible Scriptures alone, and not from tra-
dition, that Paul and Apollos reasoned, after the example of Christ,
who appeals to Moses and the Prophets, and speaks disparagingly of
the traditions of the elders as obscuring the Word of God or destroy-
ing its true effect.1
In opposition to all this the Vatican dogma requires a wholesale
slaughter of the intellect and will, and destroys the sense of personal
responsibility. The fundamental error, the irp&rov ^cvSoe of Rome is
that she identifies the true ideal Church of Christ with the empirical
Church, and the empirical Church with the Romish Church, and the
Eomish Church with the Papacy, and the Papacy with the Pope, and
at last substitutes a mortal man for the living Christ, who is the only
and ever present head of the Church, ' which is his body, the fullness of
him who filleth all in all.' Christ needs no vicar, and the very idea
of a vicar implies the absence of the Master.2
1 It is remarkable that Christ always uses irapadocriG in an unfavorable sense : see Mutt.
xv. 2, 3, «; Mark vii. 3, 5, 8, !), IS. So also Paul: Gal. i. 14 ; Col. ii. 8; while in 1 (V.xi.
2, and 2 Thoss. ii. 15; iii. 6, he uses the term in a good sense, as identical with tho gospel ho
preached.
3 I add here what Dr. Hodge, of Princeton, says on the Papal theory of Infallibility (System-
atic Theology, New York, 1872, Vol. I. pp. UK), 150) : c There is something simple and grand in
this theory. It is wonderfully adapted to the tastes and wants of men. It relieves them of per-
sonal responsibility. Every thing is decided for them. Their salvation is secured by merely
submitting to be saved by an infallible, sin-pardoning, and grace-imparting Church. Many
may be inclined to think that it would have been a great blessing had Christ left on earth a
visible representative of himself, clothed with his authority to teach and govern, and an order
of men dispersed through the world endowed with the gifts of the original Apostles — men
every where accessible, to whom we could resort in all times of difficulty and doubt, and whoso
§ 34. PAPAL INFALLIBILITY EXPLAINED AND TESTED- 171
Papal Infallibility tested by Tradition.
The dogma of Papal Infallibility is mainly supported by an infer-
ential dogmatic argument derived from the Primacy of Peter, who, as
the Vicar of Christ, must also share in his infallibility ; or from the
nature and aim of the Church, which is to teach men the way of salva-
tion, and must therefore be endowed with an infallible and ever avail-
able organ for that purpose, since God always provides the means to-
gether with an end. A full-blooded Infallibilist, whose piety consists
in absolute submission and devotion to his lord the Pope, is per-
fectly satisfied with this reasoning, and cares little or nothing for the
Bible and for history, except so far as they suit his purpose. If facts
disagree with his dogmas, all the worse for the facts. All you have to
do is to ignore or to deny them, or to force them, by unnatural inter-
pretations, into reluctant obedience to the dogmas.1 But after all, even
decisions could be safely received as the decisions of Christ himself. God's thoughts, how-
ever, are not as our thoughts. We know that when Christ was on earth men did not believe
or obey him. We know that when the Apostles were still living, and their authority was
still confirmed by signs, and wonders, and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost, the
Church was distracted by heresies and schisms. If any in their sluggishness are disposed to
think that a perpetual body of infallible teachers would be a blessing, all must admit that the
assumption of infallibility by the ignorant, the erring, and the wicked, must be an evil incon-
ceivably great. The Romish theory, if true, might be a blessing ; if false, it must be an aw-
ful curse. That it is false may be demonstrated to the satisfaction of all who do not wish it
to be true, and who, unlike the Oxford tractarian, are not determined to believe it because
they love it. ... If the Church be infallible, its authority is no less absolute in the sphere of
social and political life. It is immoral to contract or to continue an unlawful marriage, to
keep an unlawful oath, to enact unjust laws, to obey a sovereign hostile to the Church. The
Church, therefore, has the right to dissolve marriages, to free men from the obligations of
their oaths, and citizens from their allegiance, to abrogate civil laws, and to depose sovereigns.
These prerogatives have not only been claimed, but time and again exercised by the Church
of Rome. They all of right belong to that Church, if it be infallible. As these claims are
anforced by penalties involving the loss of the soul, they can not be resisted by those who ad-
mit the Church to be infallible. It is obvious, therefore, that where this doctrine is held there
can be no liberty of opinion, no freedom of conscience, no civil or political freedom. As the
recent oecumenical Council of the Vatican has decided that this infallibility is vested in the
Pope, it is henceforth a matter of faith with Romanists, that the Roman Pontiff is the abso-
lute sovereign of the world. All men are bound, on the penalty of eternal death, to believe
what he declares to be true, and to do whatever he decides is obligatory.'
1 Archbishop Manning (III. p. 118) speaks of history as * a wilderness without guide or path/
and says : * Whensoever any doctrine is contained in the divine revelation of the Church'
[the very point which can not be proved in the case before us], 'all difficulties from human
history are excluded, as Tertullian lays down, by prescription. The only source of revealed
truth is God ; the only channel of his revelation is the Church. No human history can de-
clare what is contained in that revelation. The Church alone can determine its limits, and
therefore its contents/
CREEDS OIF CHRISTENDOM.
according to the Roman Catholic theory, Scripture and history or tra-
dition are the two indispensable tests of the truth of a dogma. It has
always been held that the Pope and the Bishops are not the creators
and judges, but the trustees and witnesses of the apostolic deposit of
faith, and that they can define and proclaim no dogma which is not
well founded in primitive tradition, written or unwritten. According
to the famous rule of Vincentius Lirinensis, a dogma must have three
marks of catholicity: the catholicity of time (semper), of space (uligue),
and of number (ab omnibus). The argument from tradition is abso-
lutely essential to orthodoxy in the Roman sense, and, as hitherto held,
more essential than Scripture proof,1 The difference between Roman-
ism and Protestantism on this point is this : Romanism requires proof
from tradition first, from Scripture next, and makes the former indis-
pensable, the latter simply desirable ; while Protestantism reverses the
order, and with its theory of the Bible as the only rule of faith and
practice, and as an inexhaustible mine of truth that yields precious ore
to every successive generation of miners, it may even dispense with
traditional testimony altogether, provided that a doctrine can be clearly
derived from the Word of God.
Now it can be conclusively proved that the dogma of Papal In-
fallibility, like the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary,
lacks every one of the three marks of catholicity. It is a compara-
tively modern innovation. It was not dreamed of for more than a
thousand years, and is unknown to this day in the Greek Church,
the oldest in the world, and in matters of antiquity always an im-
portant witness. The whole history of Christianity would have taken
a different course, if in all theological controversies an infallible tri-
bunal in Rome could have been invoked.2 Ancient Creeds, Councils,
1 This Archbishop Kenrick, in his Concio, frankly admits : 'Irenai, Tertuttiani, Augustini,
Vincentii Lirinensis exempla secutus, fide% Catholica probations ex traditione potius quam
-ex Scripturarum interpretation qucerendas duxi; quce interpretatio, juxta Tertullianum ma-
gi* apta est ad veritatem obumbitandum quam demonstrandum.'
9 ' Die ganze Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends der XEircke ware eine andere yewesen, wenn
in dem Bischofvon Horn das Bewusstsein, in der Kirche auch nur eine Ahnttng davon gewesen
ware, class dort ein Quell unfehlbarer Wahrheit jftiesse. Statt all der bittern, versttirenden
Kampfe gegen wirkliche oder vermeintliche Hdretiker, gegen die man Bttcher schrieb und By-
noden oiler Art versammelte, w&rden alle Wohlmeinende. sic.h auf den unfehlbare.n Spruch des
Papstes berufen haben, und mehr als einst das Orakel des Apollo zu JDe/phi wurde das zu
Rom befragt warden sein. Dagegen war es in jenen Jahrhunderten, als alles Ohristenthum auf
§ 34. PAPAL INFALLIBILITY EXPLAINED AND TESTED. 173
Fathers, and Popes can be summoned as witnesses against the Vatican
dogma.
1. The four oecumenical Creeds, the most authoritative expressions
of the old Catholic faith of the Eastern and Western Churches, contain
an article on the 'holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,3 but not one
word about the Bishops of Rome, or any other local Church. How
easy and natural, yea, in view of the fundamental importance of the
Infallibility dogma, how necessary would have been the insertion of Ro-
man after the other predicates of the Church, or the addition of the
article : 'The Pope of Rome, the successor of Peter and infallible vicar
of Christ.' If it had been believed then as now, it would certainly ap-
pear at least in the Roman form of the Apostles' Creed ; but this is as
silent on this point as the Aquilejan, the African, the G-allican, and
other forms.
And this uniform silence of all the oecumenical Creeds is strength-
ened by the numerous local Creeds of the Nicene age, and by the vari-
ous ante-Nicene rules of faith up to Tertullian and Irenseus, not one of
which contains an allusion to such an article of faith.
2. The oecumenical Councils of the first eight centuries, which are
recognized by the Greek and Latin Churches alike, are equally silent
about, and positively inconsistent with, Papal Infallibility. They were
called by Greek Emperors, not by Popes ; they were predominantly,
and some of them exclusively, Oriental ; they issued their decrees in
their own name, and in the fullness of authority, without thinking of
submitting them to the approval of Rome ; they even claimed the right
of judging and condemning the Roman Pontiff, as well as any other
Bishop or Patriarch.
In the first Nicene Council there was but one representative of the
Latin Church (Hosius of Spain) ; and in the second and the fifth oecu-
menical Councils there was none at all. The second oecumenical Coun-
cil (381), in the third canon, put the Patriarch of Constantinople on a par
with the Bishop of Rome, assigning to the latter only a primacy of
honor; and the fourth oecumenical Council (451) confirmed this canon
in spite of the energetic protest of Pope Leo I.
die Spitze eines Dogmas gestettt wwde, nichts unerhdrtes, dass auch ein Papst vor der sub*
tilen Bestimmung de$ siegenden Dogma zwn Haretikcr wurde.' Hase, Polemik, Bach I,
c.ir.p.161.
174: THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
But more than this : the sixth oecumenical Council, held 680, pro-
nounced the anathema on Honoring 'the former Pope of old Koine,'
for teaching officially the Monothelite heresy; and this anathema was
signed hy all the members of the Council, including the three delegates
of the Pope, and was several times repeated by the seventh and eighth
Councils, which were presided over by Papal delegates. But we must
return to this famous case again in another connection.
3. The Fathers, even those who unconsciously did most service to
Rome, and laid the foundation for its colossal pretensions, yet had no
idea of ascribing absolute supremacy and infallibility to the Pope.
Clement of Kome, the first Koman Bishop of whom we have any
authentic account, wrote a letter to the Church at Corinth — not in his
name, but in the name of the Roman Congregation; not with an air
of superior authority, but as a brother to brethren — barely mentioning
Peter, but eulogizing Paul, and with a clear consciousness of the great
difference between an Apostle and a Bishop or Elder.
Ignatius of Antioch, who suffered martyrdom in Rome under Tra-
jan, highly as he extols Episcopacy and Church unity in his seven Epis-
tles, one of which is addressed to the Roman Christians, makes no dis-
tinction of rank among Bishops, but treats them as equals.
Irenseus of Lyons, the champion of the Catholic faith against the
Gnostic heresy at the close of the second century, and the author of
the famous and variously understood passage about tiiQpotentwrjirin-
cvpalitas (trpoTtia) ecclesiw liomanw, sharply reproved Victor of Rome
when he ventured to excommunicate the Asiatic Christians for their
different mode of celebrating Easter, and told him that it was contrary
to Apostolic doctrine and practice to judge brethren on account of eat-
ing and drinking, feasts and new moons. Cyprian, likewise a saint and
a martyr, in the middle of the third century, in his zoal for visible and
tangible unity against the schismatics of his diocese, first brought out
the fertile doctrine of the Roman See as the chair of Peter and the
centre of Catholic unity ; yet with all his Romanizing tendency lie was
the great champion of the Episcopal solidarity and equality system, and
always addressed the Roman Bishop as his 'brothor' and 'colleague;'
he even stoutly opposed Pope Stephen's view of the validity of heret-
ical baptism, charging him with error, obstinacy, and presumption.
He never yielded, arid the African Bishops, at the third Council at
§ 34. PAPAL INFALLIBILITY EXPLAINED AND TESTED. 175
Carthage (256), emphatically indorsed his opposition. Firmilian,
Bishop of Caesarea, and Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, likewise bit-
terly condemned the doctrine and conduct of Stephen, and told him
that in excommunicating others he only excommunicated himself.
Augustine is often quoted by Infallibilists on account of his famous
dictum, Roma locuta est, causa finita est.1 But he simply means that,
since the Councils of Mileve and Carthage had spoken, and Pope Inno-
cent I. had acceded to their decision, the Pelagian controversy was
finally settled (although it was, after all, not settled till after his death,
at the Council of Ephesus). Had he dreamed of the abuse made of
this utterance,2 he would have spoken very differently. For the same
Augustine apologized for Cyprian's opposition to Pope Stephen on the
ground that the controversy had then not yet been decided by a Coun-
cil, and maintained the view of the liability of Councils to correction
and improvement by subsequent Councils. He moreover himself op-
posed Pope Zosimus, when, deceived by Pelagius, he declared him
sound in the faith, although Pope Innocent I. had previously excom-
municated him as a dangerous heretic. And so determined were the
Africans, under the lead of Augustine (417 and 4:18), that Zosimus
finally saw proper to yield and to condemn Pelagianism in his ' Epis-
tola Tractoria?
Gregory L, or the Great, the last of the Latin Fathers, and the
iirst of the mediaeval Popes (590-604), stoutly protested against the
assumption of the title c&cumenical or universal Bishop on the part of
the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria, and denounced this
whole title and claim as "blasphemous, anti-Christian, and devilish,
since Christ alone was the Head and Bishop of the Church universal,
while Peter, Paul, Andrew, and John, were members under the same
Head, and heads only of single portions of the whole. Gregory would
rather call himself * the servant of the servants of God,' which, in the
mouths of his successors, pretending to be Bishops of bishops and Lords
of lords, has become a shameless irony.3
1 Or in a modified form: l Causa finita est, utinam aliquando Jiniatur error!1 Serm. 131,
c. 10. See Janus, Kauscher, von Schulte versus Cardoni and Hergenrother, quoted by From-
mann, p. 424.
a As well as some other of his sententious sayings. His explanation of coge intrare was
made to justify religious persecutions, from which his heart would have shrunk in horror.
3 The passages of Gregory on this subject are well known to every scholar. And yet the
176 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
As to the Greek Fathers, it would be useless to quote them, for the
entire Greek Church in her genuine testimonies has never accepted the
doctrine of Papal supremacy, much less of Papal Infallibility.
4:. Heretical Popes. — We may readily admit the rock-like stability
of the Eoman Church in the early controversies on the Trinity and the
Divinity of Christ, as compared with the motion and changeability of the
Greek churches during the same period, when the East was the chief
theatre of dogmatic controversy and progress. Without some founda-
tion in history, the Yatican dogma could not well have arisen. It would
be impossible to raise the claim of infallibility in behalf of the Patri-
archs of Jerusalem, or Antioch, or Alexandria, or Constantinople, among
whom were noted Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Monothelites, and
other heretics. Yet there are not a few exceptions to the rule ; and as
many Popes, in their lives, flatly contradicted their title of holiness, so
many departed, in their views, from Catholic truth. That the Popes
after the Eeformation condemned and cursed Protestant truths well
founded in the Scriptures, we leave here out of sight, and confine our
reasoning to facts within the limits of Roman Catholic orthodoxy.
The canon law assumes throughout that a Pope may openly teadb
heresy, or contumaciously contradict the Catholic doctrine ; for it de-
clares that, while he stands above all secular tribunals, yet he can be
judged and deposed for the crime of heresy.3 This assumption was so
interwoven in the faith of the Middle Ages that even the most power-
ful of all Popes, Innocent III. (d. 121 6), gave expression to it when he
said that, though he was only responsible to God, he may sin against
the faith, and thus become subject to the judgment of the Church.2
Innocent IV. (d. 1254) speaks of heretical commands of the Pope, which
need not be obeyed. When Boniface VIII. (d. 1303) declared that
every creature must obey the Pope at the loss of eternal salvation, he
was charged with having a devil, because he presumed to be infallible,
Vatican decree, in ch. iii., by omitting the principal part, makes him say almost the very
opposite.
1 Decret. Gratian. Dist. xl. c. 6, in conformity with the sentence of Hadrian II. : 'Cunctos
ipsos judicature [Papa], a nemine est judicandus, NISI DEPREHKNDATUR A FXDJB DBVXUS.
See on this point especially von Schulte, Concilien, pp. 188 sqq.
8 Serin. II. de ronsecrat, Pontifficia : * In tantum mild Jides necessaria et f, cum de caeterit
pcccatis Deum judicem habcam, ut propter solum peccatum quod injfidem commiitifur, pottim
o,b JScclesia judicari. '
§ 34. PAPAL INFALLIBILITY EXPLAINED AND TESTED. 177
which was impossible without witchcraft. Even Hadrian VI., in the
sixteenth century, expressed the view, which he did not recant as Pope,
that c if by the Eoman Church is understood its head, the Pope, it is
certain that he can err even in matters of faith.5
This old Catholic theory of the fallibility of the Pope is abundantly
borne out by actual facts, which have been established again and again
by Catholic scholars of the highest authority for learning and candor.
We need no better proofs than those furnished by them.
Zephyrinus (201-219) and Callistus (219-223) held and taught (ac-
cording to the 'Philosophumena' of Hippolytus, a martyr and saint)
the Patripassian heresy, that God the Father became incarnate and
suffered with the Son.
Pope Liberius, in 358, subscribed an Arian creed for the purpose of
regaining his episcopate, and condemned Athanasius, * the father of or-
thodoxy,' who mentions the fact with indignation.
During the same period, his rival, Felix II., was a decided Arian ; but
there is a dispute about his legitimacy ; some regarding him as an anti-
Pope, although he has a place in the Romish Calendar of Saints^ and
Gregory XIII. (1582) confirmed his claim to sanctity, against which
Baronius protested.
In the Pelagian controversy. Pope Zosimus at first indorsed the or-
thodoxy of Pelagius and Celestius, whom his predecessor, Innocent I.,
had condemned ; but he yielded afterwards to the firm protest of St.
Augustine and the African Bishops.
In the Three-Chapter controversy, Pope Vigilius (538-555) showed a
contemptible vacillation between two opinions: first indorsing; then, a
year afterwards, condemning (in obedience to the Emperor's wishes) the
Three Chapters (i. e., the writings of Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas) ;
then refusing the condemnation ; then, tired of exile, submitting to the
fifth oecumenical Council (553), which had broken off comncmnion with
him ; and confessing that he had unfortunately been the tool of Satan,
who labors for the destruction of the Church. A long schism in the
West was the consequence. Pope Pelagius II. (585) significantly ex-
cused this weakness by the inconsistency of St. Peter at Antioch.
John XXII. (d. 1334) maintained, in opposition to Nicholas III. and
Clement V. (d. 1314), that the Apostles did not live in perfect pov-
erty, and branded the opposite doctrine of his predecessors as heretical
178 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
and dangerous. He also held an opinion concerning the middle state
of the righteous, which was condemned as heresy by the University of
Paris.
Contradictory opinions were taught by different Popes on the sacra-
ments, on the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary (wee p. 128),
on matrimony, and on the subjection of the temporal power to the
Church.1
But the most notorious case of an undeniably official indorsement of
heresy by a Pope is that of HONOKIUB I. (1W5-C3S), which alone is suffi-
cient to disprove Papal Infallibility, according to the maxim: JFaUw
in uno,fal$us in omnibtts* This case has been sifted to the very bot-
tom before and during the Council, especially by Bishop Ilefele and
*?6re Gratry. The following decisive facts are established by the best
documentary evidence :
(1.) Ilonorius taught ex cathedra (in two letters to his heretical col-
league, Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople) the TVTonothelitc heresy,
which was condemned by the sixth oecumenical Council, i. e., the doc-
trine that Christ had only one will, and not two (corresponding to his
two natures).3
(2.) An oecumenical Council, universally acknowledged in the East
and in the West, held in Constantinople, 680, condemned and excom-
1 See examples under this head in Jamis, pp. 54 sqq. (Irrthumer und Widvrspriichfi dfir
Papste), p. 5 1 of the London ed.
* Or, as Perrone, himself an Tnfallibilist, who in his I >ogmatic Theology characteristically
treats of the Pope before the Holy Scriptures and tradition, puts it: *Si ?W unirwt ajusmodi
error deprehenderatur, appareret omms addwitns jmthntiontA in nihilum redantwn irV
3 Honorius prescribed the technical term of the MonotholitOH aH a dogma to the Church
(dogma ecclesiasticum). In a reply to the Monothelite Patriarch SerguiH of Constantinople,
which is still extant in Greek and Latin (Mansi, Coll. ConrM. Tom. XL pp. MS «qq.)» he ap-
proves of his heretical view, and says as clearly as words can make it : * Therefore wo confess
also one will (Iv SrsXiwa) of our Lord Jesus Christ, since the Godhead has assumed our nature^
but not our guilt.' In a second letter to Hergius, of which we have two fragments (Mansi,
1. c. p. 570), Honorius rejects the orthodox term two energies (Mo Ivlpywti, dutv operation^
which is used alongside with two wills (Mo foX/j^ra, voluntates). Christ, ho reasons, as-
sumed human nature as it was before the fall, when it had not a law in the members which
resists the law of the Spirit. Tie knew only a sinful human will, The Catholic Church re-
jects Monothelitism, or the doctrine of one will of Christ, as involving or necessarily leading
to Monophysitism, i.e., the doctrine that Christ had hut mw nature; for will is an attribute
of nature, not of the person. The Godhead has throe persons, but only one nature, and only
one will. Christ has two wills, because he has two natures. The compromise formula of Krn-
peror Heradius and Patriarch t-'crgius of Constantinople endeavored to reconcile the Mono-
physites with the orthodox Church by teaching that Christ had two natures, but only one
will and one energy.
§ 34. PAPAL INFALLIBILITY EXPLAINED AND TESTED. 179
municated Honoring, ' the former Pope of Old Rome,' as a heretic, who
with the help of the old serpent had scattered deadly error.1 The sev-
enth oecumenical Council (787) and the eighth (869) repeated the anath-
ema of the sixth.
(3.) The succeeding Popes down to the eleventh century, in a solemn
oath at their accession, indorsed the sixth oecumenical Council, and pro-
nounced 4an eternal anathema' on the authors of the Monothelite her-
esy, together with Pope Honorius, because he had given aid and com-
fort to the perverse doctrines of the heretics.2 The Popes themselves,
therefore, for more than three centuries, publicly recognized, first, that
an oecumenical Council may condemn a Pope for open heresy, and,
secondly, that Pope Honorius was justly condemned for heresy. Pope
Leo II., in a letter to the Emperor, strongly confirmed the decree of the
Council, and denounced his predecessor Honorius as one who ' endeav-
ored by profane treason to overthrow the immaculate faith o£ the Ro-
man Church.'3 The same Pope says, in a letter to the Spanish Bishops :
c With eternal damnation have been punished Theodore, Cyrus, Ser-
gius — together with Hbnorius, who did not extinguish at the very be-
ginning the flame of heretical doctrine, as was becoming to his apostolic
authority, but nursed it by his carelessness.'4
This case of Honorius is as clear and strong as any fact in Church
history.5 Infallibilists have been driven to desperate efforts. Some
pronounce the acts of the Council, which exist in Greek and Latin,
downright forgeries (Baronius) ; others, admitting the acts, declare the
1 Sessio XVI, : 'Sergio hceretico anathema, Cyro hceretico anathema, Honorio hceretico
anathema.' . . . Sessio XVIII.: 'Honorius, qui fuit Papa antique Romce . . . non vaca-
vit . . . Ecclesim erroris scandalum suscitare unius votuntatis, et unius operationis in duabus
naturis unius Christi,' etc. See Mansi, Cone. Tom, XI, pp. 622, 635, 655, 6G6.
2 'Quiet pravis hcereticorum assertionibus f amentum impendit.' This Papal oath was proba-
bly prescribed by Gregory II. (at the beginning of the eighth century), and is found in the
Liber Diurnus (the book of formularies of the Roman chancery from the fifth to the eleventh
century), edited by Eugene de Roziere, Paris, 1869, No. 84. The Liber Pontiftcalis agrees
with the Liber Diurnus. Editions of the Roman Breviary down to the sixteenth century re-
iterated the charge against Honorius, since silently dropped.
3 'Nee non et Honorium [anathematizamus'], qui hanc apostolicam ecclesiam non apostolicce
traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam Jidem subvertere conatus
est.' Mansi, Tom. XL p. 781.
* 'Cum Honorio, qui flammam hceretici dogmatis, non ut decuit apostolicam auctoritatem,
incipientem extinxit, sed negligendo confovit.' Mansi, p. 1052.
* Comp. especially the tract of Bishop Hefele, above quoted. The learned author of the
History of the Councils has proved the case as conclusively as a mathema,tical demonstration.
180 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
letters of Honorms forgeries, so that he was unjustly condemned by the
Council (Bellarmin) — both without a shadow of proof; still others, being
forced at last to acknowledge the genuineness of the letters and acts,
distort the former into an orthodox sense by a non-natural exegesis, and
thus unwillingly fasten upon oecumenical Councils and Popes the charge
of either dogmatic ignorance and stupidity, or malignant representa-
tion.1 Yet in every case the decisive fact remains that both Councils
and Popes for several hundred years believed in the fallibility of the
Pope, in flat contradiction to the Vatican Council. Such acts of vio-
lence upon history remind one of King James's short method with
Dissenters : c Only hang them, that's all.'
5. The idea of Papal absolxitism and Infallibility, like that of the
sinlessness of Mary, can be traced to apocryphal origin. It is found
first, in the second century, in the pseudo-Clementine Homilies, which
contain a singular system of speculative Ebionism, and represent James
of Jerusalem, the brother of the Lord, as the Bishop of Bishops, the
centre of Christendom, and the general Vicar of Christ ; he is the last
arbiter, from whom there is no appeal ; to him even Peter must give
an account of his labors, and to him the sermons of Peter were sent
for safe keeping.2
In the Catholic Church the same idea, but transferred to the Bishop
of Rome, is first clearly expressed in the psoudo-Isidorian Decretals,
that huge forgery of Papal letters, which appeared in the middle of the
ninth century, and had for its object the completion of the independ-
ence of the Episcopal hierarchy from the State, and the absolute power
of the Popes, as the legislators and judges of all Christendom. Here
the most extravagant claims are put into the mouths of the early Popes,
from Clement (91) to Damasus (384), in the barbarous French Latin of
the Middle Ages, and with such numerous and glaring anachronisms as
to force the conviction of fraud even upon Roman Catholic scholars.
1 So Perrone, in his Dogmatics^ and Pennachi, in his Liber de Honorii L Rom. Pont, causa,
1870, which is effectually disposed of by Hefele in an Appendix to the German edition of his
tract. Nevertheless, Archbishop Manning, sublimely ignoring all but Infullihilist authorities
on Honorius, has the face to assert (UI. p. 223) that the case of Honoring is doubtful ; that he
defined no doctrine whatever ; and that his two epistles are entirely orthodox ! IH Manning
more infallible than the infallible Pope Leo II., who denounced Honorius ex cathedra as
a heretic?
3 See my Church History, Vol. I. § 69, p. 219, and the tract of Lutterbeck above quoted.
§ 34. PAPAL INFALLIBILITY EXPLAINED AND TESTED. 181
One of these sayings is : £ The Roman Church remains to the end free
from stain of heresy.' Soon afterwards arose, in the same hierarchical
interest, the legend of the donation of Constantine and his baptism by
Pope Silvester, interpolations of the writings of the Fathers, especially
Cyprian and Augustine, and a variety of fictions embodied in the Gesta
Liberii and the Liber Pontificalis, and sanctioned by Gratianus (about
1150) in his Decretum, or collection of canons, which (as the first part
of the Corpus juris canoniei) became the code of laws for the whole
Western Church, and exerted an extraordinary influence. By this
series of pious frauds the mediaeval Papacy, which was the growth of
ages, was represented to the faith of the Church as a primitive institu-
tion of Christ, clothed with absolute and perpetual authority.
The Popes since Nicholas I. (858-867), who exceeded all his prede-
cessors in the boldness of his designs, freely used what the spirit of a
hierarchical, superstitious, and uncritical age furnished them. They
quoted the fictitious letters of their predecessors as genuine, the Sardican
canon on appeals as a canon of Nicsea, and the interpolated sixth canon
of Nicsea, c the Roman Church always had the primacy,' of which there
is not a syllable in the original; and nobody doubted them. Papal
absolutism was in full vigor from Gregory VII. to Boniface VIII.
Scholastic divines, even Thomas Aquinas, deceived by these literary
forgeries, began to defend Papal absolutism over the whole Church,
and the Councils of Lyons (1274) and of Florence (1439) sanctioned it,
although the Greeks soon afterwards rejected the false union based
upon such assumption.
But absolute power, especially of a spiritual kind, is invariably intox-
icating and demoralizing to any mortal man who possesses it. God
Almighty alone can bear it, and even he allows freedom to his rational
creatures. The reminiscence of the monstrous period when the Papacy
was a football in the hands of bold and dissolute women (904-962), or
when mere boys, like Benedict IX. (1033), polluted the Papal crown
with the filth of unnatural vices, could not be quite forgotten. The
scandal of the Papal schism (1378 to 1409), when two and even three
rival Popes excommunicated and cursed each other, and laid all West-
ern Christendom under the ban, excited the moral indignation of all
good men in Christendom, and called forth, in the beginning of the
fifteenth century, the three Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basle,
182 THE CREEDS Otf CHRISTENDOM.
which loudly demanded a reformation of the Church, in the head as
well as in the members, and asserted the superiority of a Council over
the Pope.
The Council of Constance (1414-1418), the most numerous ever Keen
in the West, deposed two Popes — John XXIII. (the infamous Balthasar
Cossa, who had been recognized by the majority of the Church), on the
charge of a series of crimes (May 29, 1415), and Benedict XII L, as a
heretic who sinned against the unity of the Church (July 20, 1417),1
and elected a new Pope, Martin V. (Nov. 11, 1517), who had given his
adhesion to the Council, though after his accession to power he found
ways and means to defeat its real object^ i. e., the reformation of the
Church.
This Council was a complete triumph of the Episcopal system, and
the Papal absolutists and Infallibilists are here forced to the logical di
lemma of cither admitting the validity of the Council, or invalidating
the election of Martin V. and his successors. Either course is fatal to
their system. Hence there has never been an authoritative decision
on the ceeumenicity of this Council, and the only subterfuge is to say
that the whole case is an extraordinary exception ; but this, after all,
involves the admission that there is a higher power in the Church over
the Papacy.
The Reformation shook the whole Papacy to its foundation, but
could not overthrow it. A powerful reaction followed, headed by the
Jesuits. Their General, Lainez, strongly advocated .Papal Infallibility
in the Council of Trent, and declared that the Church could not err
only because the Pope could not err. But the Council left the question
undecided, and the Roman Catechism ascribes infallibility simply to
'the Catholic Church,' without defining its seat Bellarmin advocated
and formularized the doctrine, stating it as an almost general opinion
that the Pope could not publicly teach a heretical dogma, and as a
probable and pious opinion that Providence will guard him even
against private heresy. Yet the same Bellarmin was witness to the
innumerable blunders of the edition of the Latin Vulgate prepared by
Sixtus Y., corrected by his own hand, and issued by him as the only true
and authentic text of the sacred Scriptures, with the stereotyped forms
1 The third anti-Pope, Gregory XII., resigned.
§ 34. PAPAL INFALLIBILITY EXPLAINED AND TESTED. 183
of anathema upon all who should venture to change a single word ;
and Bellarmin himself gave the advice that all copies should be called
in, and a new edition printed with a lying statement in the preface
making the printers the scape-goats for the errors of the Pope ! This
whole business of the Vulgate is sufficient to explode Papal Infallibil-
ity ; for it touches the very source of divine revelation. Other Italian
divines, like Alphonsus Liguori, and Jesuitical text-books, unblushingly
use long-exploded mediaeval fictions and interpolations as a groundwork
of Papal absolutism and Infallibility.
It is not necessary to follow the progress of the controversy between
the Episcopal and the Papal systems during the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries. It is sufficient to say that the greatest Catholic
divines of France and Germany, including Bossuet and Mohler, togeth-
er with many from other countries, down to the 88 protesting Bishops
in the Vatican Council, were anti-Infallibilists ; and that popular Cate-
chisms of the Roman Church, extensively used till 1870, expressly de-
nied the doctrine, which is now set up as an article of faith necessary
to eternal salvation.1
Papal Infallibility and the Bible.
The Old Testament gives no tangible aid to the Infallibilists. The
Jewish Church existed as a divine institution, and served all its pur-
poses, from Abraham to John the Baptist, without an infallible tribu-
nal in Jerusalem, save the written law and testimony, made effective
from time to time by the living voice of inspired prophecy. Pious Israel-
ites found in the Scriptures the way of life, notwithstanding the con-
tradictory interpretations of rabbinical schools and carnal perversions
of Messianic prophecies, fostered by a corrupt hierarchy. The TTrim
1 So Overberg's Katechismus, III. Hauptstiick, Fr. 349: 'Mtissen wir auch glauben, dass
derPapst unfehlbar ist? NBIN, DIES IST KEIN GLAUBENSA.TITIKEL.' Keenan's Controversial
Catechism, in the editions before 1871, declared Papal Infallibility to be 'a Protestant in-
vention.' The Irish Bishops — Doyle, Murray, Kelly — affirmed under oath, before a Com-
mittee of the English Parliament in 1825, that the Papal authority is limited by Councils,
that it does not extend to civil affairs and the temporal rights of princes, and that Papal de-
crees are not binding on Catholics without the consent of the whole Church, either dispersed
or assembled in Council. See the original in the Appendix to Archbishop Kenrick's Con-
do in Friedrich's Document®, I. pp. 228-242. But the Irish Catholics, who almost believe
in the infallibility of their priests, can be very easily taught to believe in the infallibility of the
Pope.
VOL. L_TST
184: THE CREEDS Off CHRISTENDOM.
and Thummim1 of the High-Priest has no doubt symbolical reference
to some kind of spiritual illumination or oracular consultation, but it
is of too uncertain interpretation to furnish an argument.
The passages of the New Testament which are used by Roman di-
•vines in support of the doctrine of Infallibility may be divided into
two classes : those which seem to favor the Episcopal or Gallican, and
those which are made to prove the Papal or Ultramontane theory. It
is characteristic that the Papal Infallibilists carefully avoid the former.
1. To the first class belong John xiv. 16 sq. ; xvi. 13-16, where Christ
promises the Holy Ghost to his disciples that he may ' abide with them
forever,' teach them 'all things,5 bring to their remembrance all he
had said to them,2 and guide them ' into the whole truth ;' 3 John xx.
21 : c As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you. . . . Receive ye
the Holy Ghost;'4 Matt, xviii. 18: ' Whatever ye shall bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven,' etc. ; Matt xxviii. 19, 20 : £ Go and disciple
all nations . . . and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of
the world.'
These passages, which are addressed to all Apostles alike, to doubt-
ing Thomas as well as to Peter, prove indeed the unbroken presence of
Christ and the Holy Ghost in the Church to the end of time, which is one
of the most precious and glorious truths admitted by every true Chris-
tian. But, in the first place, the Church, which is here represented by
the Apostles, embraces all true believers, laymen as well as Bishops.
1 That is, 8fi\wie ical <fcX^&«a, dortrina et veritas, Exod. xxviii. 15-30 ; Deut. xxxiii, 8, 9 ;
1 Sam. xxviii. 6. The Urim and Thnmmim were inscribed on the garment of Aaron. Some
interpreters identify them with the twelve stones on which the names of the tribes of Israel
were engraved ; others regard them as a plate of gold with the sacred name of Jehovah ;
still others as polished diamonds, in form like dice, which, being thrown on the table or Ark
of the Covenant, were consulted as an oracle. See the able article of Plumptro, in Smith's
Bible Dictionary, Vol. IV. pp. 385(5 sqq. (Am. ed.).
3 The Trnvra implies a strong argument for the completeness of Christ's revelation in the
New Testament against the Romish doctrine of addition.
8 The phrase ifc rfv dKifiuav waoav (John xvi. 18), or, according to another reading, iv
iy dXrjbeiq, wavy (test. rec. «/£ iravav rt)v rfX^&uav), expresses the truth as taught by Christ
in its completeness — the whole truth — and proves likewise the sufficiency of the Scriptures.
The A. V. and its predecessors (' into all truth'), also Luther (in alle Wahrlmf^ instead of
die ganze or voile Wahrheit), miss the true sense by omitting the article, and conveying the
false idea that the Holy Ghost would impart to all the apostles a kind of omniscience. Comp.
my annotations to Lange's John on the passages (pp. 445, 478, etc.).
4 Literally: ' Receive Holy Spirit' — \aptrt irvw^a ttyiov. The absence of the article may
indicate a partial or preparatory inspiration as distinct from the full Pentecostal effusion.
§ 34. PAPAL INFALLIBILITY EXPLAINED AND TESTED. 185
Secondly, the promise of Christ's presence implies no infallibility, for
the same promise is given even to the smallest number of true believ-
ers (Matt, xviii. 20). Thirdly, if the passages prove infallibility at all,
they would prove individual infallibility by continued inspiration rather
than corporate infallibility by official succession; for every Apostle
was inspired, and so far infallible ; and this no Roman Catholic Bishop,
though claiming to be a successor of the Apostles, pretends to be.
2. The passages quoted by the advocates of the Papal theory are
three, viz., Luke xxii. 31 ; Matt. xvi. 18 ; John xxi. 15.1
We admit, at the outset, that these passages in their obvious meaning
which is confirmed by the history of the Apostolic Church, assign to
Peter a certain primacy among the Apostles : he was the leader and
spokesman of them, and the chief agent of Christ in laying the foun-
dations of his Church among the Jews and the Gentiles. This is signifi-
cantly prophesied in the new name of Peter given to him. The his-
tory of Pentecost (Acts ii.) and the conversion of Cornelius (Acts x.)
are the fulfillment of this prophecy, and furnish the key to the inter-
pretation of the passages in the Gospels.
This is the truth which underlies the colossal lie of the Papacy. For
there is no Romish error which does not derive its life and force from
some truth.2 But beyond this we have no right to go. The position
which Peter occupied no one can occupy after him. The foundation
of the Church, once laid, is laid for all time to come, and the gates of
Hades can not prevail against it. The New Testament is its own best
interpreter. It shows no single example of an exercise of jurisdiction
of Peter over the other Apostles, but the very reverse. He himself, in
his Epistles, disowns and prophetically warns his fellow-presbyters
against the hierarchical spirit; exhorting them, instead of being lords
over God's heritage, to be ensamples to his flock (1 Pet. v. 1-4). Paul
and John were perfectly independent of him, as the Acts and Epistles
prove. Paul even openly administered to him a rebuke at Antioch.3
1 Perrone and the Vatican decree on Infallibility confine themselves to these passages.
•Augustine says somewhere: ' Nutta falsa doctrina est, qua non aliquid veri permi-
sceat.'
3 This fact is so obnoxious to Papists that some of them doubt or deny that the Cephas
of Galatians ii. 11 was the Apostle Peter, although the New Testament knows no other. So
Perrone, who also asserts, from his own preconceived theory, not from the text, that Paul
withstood Peter from respectful love as an inferior to a superior, but not as a superior to an
186 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
At the Council of Jerusalem James seems to have presided, at all
events he proposed the compromise which was adopted by the Apos-
tles, Elders, and Brethren ; Peter was indeed one of the leading speakers,
but he significantly advocated the truly evangelical principle of salva-
tion by faith alone, and protested against human bondage (Acts xv.;
comp. Gal. a.).
. The great error of the Papacy is that it perverts a primacy of honor
into a supremacy of jurisdiction, a personal privilege into an official
prerogative, and a priority of time into a permanent superiority of
rank. And to make the above passages at all available for such pur-
pose, it must take for granted, as intervening links of the argument,
that which can not be proved from the New Testament nor from his-
tory, viz., that Peter was Bishop of Rome ; that he was there as Paul's
superior; that he appointed a successor, and transferred to him his pre-
rogatives.
As to the passages separately considered, Matt, xvi,, < Thou art rock/
and John xxi., 'Feed rny flock,' could at best only prove .Papal abso-
lutism, but not Papal Infallibility, of which they do not treat.1 The
former teaches the indestructibility of the Church in its totality (not of
any individual congregation), but this is a different idea. The Council
of Trent lays down < the unanimous consent of the Fathers' as the norm
and rule of all orthodox interpretation, as if oxegctical wisdom had
begun and ended with the divines of the first six centuries. But of
the passage Matt, xvi., which is more frequently quoted by Popes and
Papists than any other passage in the Bible, there arc no less than five
different patristic interpretations ; the rock on which Christ built his
Church being referred to Christ by sixteen Fathers (including Augus-
tine) ; to the faith or confession of Peter by forty-four (including
Chrysostom, Ambrose, Hilary, Jerome, and Augustine again) ; to Poter
professing the faith by seventeen ; to all the AjpostUw, whom Peter
represented by his primacy, by eight ; to all the faithful, who, believ-
ing in Christ as the Son of God, are constituted the living stones of the
inferior! Let any Bishop try the same experiment against the Pope, and he will soon bo
sent to perdition.
1 For a full discussion of It&Tpoc and mrpa, see my edition of Lange'd Oomm, on Matt. xvi.
18, pp. 203 sqq. ; and on the Komish perversion of the fioffMtv and iriufutivtw rit <fy>j>m,
7r/)oj3ara and irpofiana into a KaraKv/oicuai/, and even withdrawal of nourishment, see my ed.
of Lange on John, pp. 638 sgq.
§ 34. PAPAL INFALLIBILITY EXPLAINED AND TESTED. 187
Church.1 But not one of the Fathers finds Papal Infallibility in this
passage, nor in John xxi. The 'unanimous consent of the Fathers'
is a pure fiction, except in the most general and fundamental prin-
ciples held by all Christians; and not to interpret the Bible except
according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, would strictly
mean not to interpret it at all.2
There remains, then, only the passage recorded by Luke (xxii. 31, 32)
as at all bearing on the disputed question : ' Simon, Simon, behold, Satan
desired to have you (or, obtained you by asking), that he may sift you
as wheat ; but I prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not ; and thou, when
once thou art converted (or, hast turned again), strengthen thy breth-
ren.' But even this does not prove infallibility, and has not been so
understood before Popes Leo I. and Agatho. For (1) the passage re-
fers, as the context shows, to the peculiar personal history of Peter
during the dark hour of passion, and is both a warning and a comfort
to him. So it is explained by the Fathers, who frequently quote it.
(2) Faith here, as nearly always in the New Testament, means personal
trust in, and attachment to, Christ, and not, as the Romish Church mis-
interprets it, orthodoxy, or intellectual assent to dogmas. (3) If the pas-
sage refers to the Popes at all, it would prove too much for them, viz.,
that they, like Peter, denied the Saviour, were converted again, and
strengthened their brethren — which may be true enough of some, but
certainly not of all.3
The constant appeal of the Roman Church to Peter suggests a sig-
nificant parallel. There is a spiritual Peter and a carnal Simon, who
1 This patristic dissensus was brought out during the Council in the Questio distributed
by Bishop Ketteler with all the proofs ; see Friedrich, Docum. I. pp. 6 sqq. Kenrick in his
speech makes use of it. Comp. also my annotations to Lange's Comm. on Matthew in loco.
3 Even Kenrick confesses that it is doubtful whether any instance of that unanimous con-
sent can be found (in his Condo, seeFriedr. Docum. I. p. 195) : 'Regula interpetrandi Scripturas
nobis imposita, hoec est : eas contra unanimem Patrum consensum non interpetrari. Si un-
quam detur consensus iste unanimis duUtari possit. Eo tamen deficient^ regula ista mdetur
nobis hgem imponere majorem, qui ad unanimitatem accedere videreiur, patrum numerum, in
suis Scripture interpretationibus sequendi.'
3 This logical inference is also noticed by Archbishop Kenrick (Concio, in Friedrich's
Docum. I. p. 200) : "Praterea sinyula verba in ista Christi ad Petrum alhcutione de Petri
successoribus intdligi nequeunt, quin aliquid maxime absurdi exinde sequi videretur. " Tu
autem conversus" respiciunt certe conversionem PetrL Si priora verba ; tlorari pro te" et
posteriora: " covfirma fratres tuos," ad successors Petri ccelestem vim, et munus transiisse
probent, non mdetur quarenam intermedia verba: "tu autem conversus," ad eo$ etiam pertinere,
et aliquali sensu de eis intelligi, non debeant. '
188 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
are separated, indeed, by regeneration, yet, after all, not so completely
that the old nature does not occasionally re-appear in the new man.
It was the spiritual Peter who forsook all to follow Christ ; who first
confessed him as the Son of God, and hence was called Kock ; who after
his terrible fall wept bitterly; was re-instated and intrusted with the care
of Christ's sheep ; who on the birthday of the Church preached the first
missionary sermon, and gathered in the three thousand converts ; who
in the Apostles' Council protested against the narrow bigotry of the
Judaizers, and stood up with Paul for the principle of salvation by
grace alone through faith in Christ; who, in his Epistles, warns all
ministers against hierarchical pride, and exhibits a wonderful meek-
ness, gentleness, and humility of spirit, showing that divine grace had
overruled and sanctified to him even his fall ; and who followed at
last his Master to the cross of martyrdom.
It was the carnal Simon who presumed to divert his Lord from the
path of suffering, and drew on him the rebuke, c G-et thee behind me,
Satan ; thou art a stumbling-block unto me, for thou mindest not the
things of God, but the things of men ;' the Simon, who in mistaken zeal
used the sword and cut off the ear of Malchus ; who proudly boasted
of his unswerving fidelity to his Master, and yet a few hours afterwards
denied him thrice before a servant- woman ; who even after the Pente-
costal illumination was overcome by his natural weakness, and, from
policy or fear of the Judaizing party, was untrue to his better convic^
tion, so as to draw on him the public rebuke of the younger Apostle
of the Gentiles, The Romish legend of Domine quo vadis makes him
relapse into his inconstancy even a day before his martyrdom, and
memorializes it in a chapel outside of Rome.
[In 1868, Cardinal Manning and Bishop Senestry of Regensburg,
while in Rome, made a vow "to do all in our power to bring about the
definition of papal infallibility," the vow being attested by the Jesuit
father Liberatore. See Purcell: Life of Manning, II., 420. Commer,
theological professor in Vienna, in an address on the twenty-fifth anni-
versary of Leo XIIL's pontificate, announced that the Roman pontiff
had properly been called by Catherine of Siena another Christ — alter
Christus. The Manual of the Catechism of Pius X. quotes with approval
that the pope is Jesus Christ on earth — il papa e Gesu Cristo sulla terra.
—ED.]
§ 35. THE LITURGICAL STANDARDS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 189
§ 35. THE LITURGICAL STANDARDS OF THE KOMAN CHURCH.
Literature.
ROMAMTTM, ex decreto SGMTo-scwictt Convilii Tridentini restitutwm, S. Pit V.t Pontifteis Moarfmi,
jussu editum, Cl&mentte VIII. et Urbani VIII. awtoritate recognitum; in quo misses novteaiinte sanctorum
accurate aunt dispositce. (Innumerable editions.)
BiiBVtAmuM ROMANTJM, flg deoreto SS. Condlii Tridentini restitutum, S. Pii V., Pontifida Maximitju88u
edttum, dementis V1IL et Droani VIII. auctoritate recognitum, cum OJjidis Sanctorum noviasime per
Suvumos Pontifieea usque ad hunc diem conceals. (The Paris and Lyons edition before me has over 1200
pp., with a Supplement of 127 pp. The Mechlin ed. of 1868 is in 4 vols.)
PONTIFICATE ROMANUM, Clewkentia VIII. oc Urbani VIII. juaw editum,inde vero a Benedicto XIK re-
cognitum et castigatnm. Cum Addition&ua o> Sacra Rituum Congregatione approbatis. (The Mechlin ed.
of 1845 is in three parts, with all the rules and directions printed in red; hence the word Rubrica.)
GKORGE LTCWIS: The Bible, the Missal, and the Breviary; or, Ritualism self-illustrated in the Liturgical
Books of Rome. Edinburgh, 1853, 2 vols.
A secondary symbolical authority belongs to those Latin liturgical
works of the Eoman Church which have been sanctioned by the Pope
for use in public and private worship. They contain, in the form of
devotion, nearly all the articles of faith, especially those referring to
the sacraments and the cultus of saints and of the holy Virgin, and
are, in a practical point of view, even of greater importance than the
doctrinal standards, inasmuch as they are interwoven with the daily
religious life of the priests.
Among these works the most important is the MISSALE ROMANUM,
as issued by Pius Y. in 1570, in compliance with a decree of the Coun-
cil of Trent. It was subsequently revised again under Clement YIIL
in 1604, and under Urban VIII. in 1634. The substance goes back to
the early eucharistic services of the Latin Church, among which the
principal ones are ascribed to Popes Leo I. (Sacramentwrium Leonir
anum, probably from 483-492), Gelasius L (Sacramentarium Q-elas%-
anum), arid Gregory I. (Sacramenta/rium 6frefforianum). But con-
siderable diversity and confusion prevailed in provincial and local
churches. Hence the Council of Trent ordered a new revision, under
the direction of the Pope, with a view to secure uniformity. The Mis-
sal consists of three parts, besides Introduction and Appendix, viz.:
(a) The Proprium Missarum de Tempore,Qj: the services for the Sun-
days of the Christian year, beginning with the first Sunday in Advent,
and closing with the last after Whitsuntide, all clustering aronnd the
great festivals of Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost. (£) The Pro-
prium Missarum de Sanctis contains the forms for the celebration of
mass on saints' days and other particular feasts, arranged according to
190 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
the months and days of the civil year; the annually recurring death-
days of saints being regarded as their celestial birth-days. (<?) The
Commune Sanctorum, is supplementary to the second part, and de-
voted to the celebration of the days of those saints for whom there is
no special service provided in the Proprium. The Appendix to the
Missal contains various masses and benedictions.
Next comes the BREVIAKIUM ROMANDM, revised by order of the Coun-
cil of Trent, under Pius V., 1568, and again under Clement VIII.,
1602, and finally brought into its present shape under Urban VIII.,
1631. Since that time it has undergone no material changes, but re-
ceived occasional additions of new festivals. The Breviary1 contains
the prayers, psalms, hymns, Scripture lessons, and patristic comments
not only for every Sunday, but for every day of the ecclesiastical year,
together with the legends of saints and martyrs, presenting model
characters and model devotions for each day, some of them good and
harmless, others questionable, superstitious, and childish. The Breviary
is a complete thesaurus of Romish piety, the private liturgy of the
Roinish priest, and to all intents and purposes his Bible. It regulates
his whole religious life. It is divided into four parts, according to
the four seasons ; each part has the same four sections : the Psalterir
urn, the Proprium de Tempore, the Proprium Sanctorum, and the
Commune Sanctorum. The Introduction contains the ecclesiastical cal-
endar. The office of each day consists of the seven or eight canonical
hours of devotion, which are brought into connection with the history
of the passion.2 The Breviary is the growth of many ages. In the early
Church great liberty and diversity prevailed in the forms of devotion,
but the Popes Leo I., Gelasius I., Gregory I., Gregory VII., Nicholas
1 The term Breviary is derived from the abridgments of the Scriptures and lives of saints
contained therein, as distinct from the pknarium officium ; by others from the fact that later
editions of the work are abridgments of former editions.
3 Matins, Lauds (3 A.M.), Prime (6 A.M.), Tierce (9 A.M.), Sext (12 M.), Nones (3 P.M.),
Vespers (6 P.M.), and Compline (midnight devotion). The Nocturn is a night service. The
custom of saying prayers at these hours goes back to the third century, and partly to Jewish
tradition. Tertullian (De jejun. c. 10) speaks of "the tertia, sixta, and nona as apostolical
hours of prayer. On the mystical reference to Christ's passion, comp. the old memorial verse:
'Hsec sunt, septenis propter qu» psallhnus horis
Matutina ligat Christum, qui crimina purgat.
Prima replet sputis. Dat causam tertia mortis.
Sexta cruci nectit. Latus ejus nona bipertit.
<?espmi deponit. Tumulo complete {.compUtoriuml reponit.1
§ 36. THE OLD CATHOLICS.
III., and others, labored to unify the priestly devotions, and this work
was completed after the Council of Trent.
Besides the Missale Romanum and the JBremarium Romanum,
there is a RITITALE KOMANUM, or Book of Priests' Eites ; an EPISCOPAL*?
ROMANUM, containing the Episcopal ceremonies, and a PONTIFICATE
ROMANUM, or the Pontifical. They contain the offices for sacramental
and other sacred acts and ceremonies, such as baptism, confirmation,
ordination, matrimony, dedication of churches, altars, bells, etc., bene-
diction of crosses, sacred vestures, cemeteries, etc.
§ 36. THE OLD CATHOLICS.
literature.
I. By Old Catholic Authors.
The writings of DOLLINGER, REINKBNS, VON SOHULTK, FRIEDRIOII, HUBER, REOSOH, LANGEN, MIOHELIS,
HYAOINTUK LOYSON, MJCOHATJD, bearing on the Vatican Council and the Old Catholic movement since 18TO.
See Literature in §§ 31 and 34.
The Reports of the OLD CATHOLIC CONGRESSES, held at Munich, September, 18T1 ; at Cologne, Septem-
ber, 1S72 ; at Constance, September, 1873 ; at Freiburg, 1874. Published at Munich, Cologne, Leipzig, and
Bonn.
JOSEPH HUBERT RBINKKNS: Katholisch&r Bfechof, den im alien Kathol. Qlauben verharrenden Priestem
und Laien ties deutschen Reiches. Bated August 11, 1S73 (the day of his consecration).
The Letter of the OLD CATHOLIC CONGRESS OP CONSTANCE (signed by Bishop Reinkens, President von
Schulte, and the Vice-Presidents Cornelius and Keller) to the GENERAL CONFERENCE OF THE EVANGEL-
ICAL ALLIANCE, held at New York, October, 1873. In the Proceedings of the Conference, New York, 1874.
F. H. RKUSOU : Bericht uber die am 14, 15, und 16 Sept. 1874, zu Bonn gehaltenen Unions-Conferenzen, im
Auftrag Dr. v. D'Ulinger herausgegeben, Bonn, 1875 C"> pp.).
DKUTSOHER MERKXTR, Organ fur die Katholiftche Reformbewegung, ed. by HIRSOHWALDER, Weltprieater.
The popular and official weekly organ since 1871.
TUEOLOGISOHKS LiTEHATURBLATT, ed. by Prof. RstTSOH, Bonn. The literary organ of the Old Catholics
(10th year, 1875).
II. By Protestant Authors.
FRIEDBERG: SammZung der Actenat&cke zum ersten Vatic. ConcU. Tubingen, 1872, pp. 53-63, 625-731,
775-598.
FROMMANN : Geschichte und Kritik des Vatic. Concils. Gotha, 1872, pp. 250-272.
J. WILLIAMSON NKVIN (of Lancaster, Pa.) : The Old Catholic Movement, in the 'Mercersburg Review1
for April, 1873, pp. 240-294.
The Alt-Catholic Movement (anonymous), in the (Araer, Bpisc.) ' Church Review,' New York, July, 1873.
W. KRAFFT (Professor of Church History in Bonn) : The Vatican Council and the Old Catholic Move-
ment, read before, and published in the Proceedings of, the General Conference of the Evangelical Alli-
ance in New York, October, 1873.
CJSSAR PRONIER (late Professor of Theology in the Free Church Seminary at Geneva, perished in the
shipwreck of the Ville du Havre, Nov. 22, 1873, on his return from the General Conference of the Evan-
gelical Alliance) : Roman Catholicism in Switzerland since the Proclamation of the Syllabus, 1873 (in the
Proceedings of the Alliance Conference, New York, 1874).
III. By Roman Catholics.
Besides many controversial writings since the year 1870 (quoted in part in §§ 31 and 34, and articles in
Roman Catholic reviews (as the Dublin Review, the Civiltd Cattolica, the Catholic World) and news-
papers (as the Paris I? ffnioers, the London Tablet, the Berlin Germania, etc.), see especially the PAPAL
ENCYCLICAL of Nov. 21, 1873, in condemnation of the 'new heretics,' miscalled * Old Catholics.1
The Old Catholic movement — the most important in the Latin
Church since the Reformation, with the exception, perhaps, of Jan-
senism— began during the Vatican Council, and was organized into
192 THE CREEDS 0$ CHRISTENDOM.
a distinct Church three years afterwards (1873), at Constance, in the
very hall where, three hundred and sixty years before, an oecumen-
ical Council was held which, by deposing two rival Popes and electing
another, asserted its superiority over the Papacy, but which, by burning
John Huss for teaching evangelical doctrines, defeated its own pro-
fessed object of a * Eeformation of the Church in the head and the
members.5 This strange coincidence of history brings to mind Luther's
poem on the Belgian martyrs :
'Die Asche willnicht lassen ab,
Sie stdubt in alien Landen;
Hier hilft kein Loch, noch Grub, noch Grdb^
Sie macht den Feind zu Schanden.'
The God of history has his floras et moras, but he always carries out
his designs at last. The Old Catholic secession would have assumed
far more formidable proportions, and cut off from the dominion of the
Pope the most intelligent and influential dioceses, if the eighty-eight
Bishops who in the Vatican Council voted against Papal Infallibil-
ity, had carried out their conviction, instead of making their submis-
sion for the sake of a hollow peace. But next to the Pope, Bishops,
from an instinctive fear of losing power, have always been most hostile
to any serious reform. The old story of the Jewish hierarchy, in deal-
ing with Christ and the Apostles, is repeated again and again in the
history of the Church, though also with the honorable exceptions of a
Nicodemus and Gamaliel.
(Ecumenical Councils are very apt to give rise to secessions. A con-
scientious minority will not yield, in matters of faith, to a mere major-
ity vote. Thus the Council of Nicsea (325) was only the signal for a
new and more serious war between orthodoxy and the Arian heresy,
and, even after the triumph of the former at Constantinople (381), the
latter lingered for centuries among the newly converted German races.
The Council of Ephesus (431) gave rise to the Nestorian schism, and
the Council of Chalcedon (451) to the several Monophysite sects, which
continue in the East to this day with almost as much tenacity of life as
the orthodox Greek Church. From the sixth oecumenical Council (680)
dates the Monothelite schism. The Council of Florence (1439) failed to
effect a union between the Latin and the Greek communions. The
Council of Trent (1563), instead of healing the split caused by the Ref-
§ 36. THE OLD CATHOLICS. 193
ormation, only deepened and perpetuated it by consolidating Roman-
ism and anathematizing evangelical doctrines. The nearest parallel to
the case in hand is the schism of the Bishops and clergy of Utrecht,
which originated in a protest against the implied Papal Infallibility of
the anti-Jansenist bull Unigenitus, and which recently made common
cause with the Old Catholics of Germany by giving them the Epis-
copal succession.
The Old Catholic Church in Germany and Switzerland arose from a
protest, in the name of conscience, reason, and honest learning, against
the Papal absolutism and infallibilism of the Vatican Council, and
against the obsolete medievalism of the Papal Syllabus. It lifts its
voice against unscrupulous Jesuitical falsifications of history, and against
that spiritual despotism which requires, as the highest act of piety, the
slaughter of the intellect and will, and thereby destroys the sense of per-
sonal responsibility. It has in its favor all the traditions of Gallican-
ism and liberal Catholicism, which place an oecumenical Council or
the whole representative Church above the Pope, the testimony of the
ancient Grseco-Latin Church, which knew nothing of Papal Infallibility,
and even condemned some Popes as heretics, and the current of his-
tory, which can not be turned backward.
The leaders of the new Church are eminent for learning, ability,
moral character, and position, and were esteemed, before the Vatican
Council, pillars and ornaments of the Roman Church — viz., DOLLINGER,*
1 Dr. John Jos. Ignat. von Dollinger, of Munich (bom 1799), the Nestor of Old Catholi-
cism, is the author of an unfinished Church History (Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte, Re-
gensburg, second edition, 1843, to Leo X.)* a polemic work against the Reformation (Die
Reformation, ihre innere Entwickelung und ihre Wirkungen, 1846Ht8, 3 vols.), a Sketch of
Luther (1851), Judaism and Heathenism in Relation to Christianity (1857), The Church and
the Churches (1860), Fables of Popes and Prophecies of the Middle Ages (1863; English trans-
lation, with a Preface by Prof. Henry B. Smith, New York, 1872), and a number of essays
and pamphlets. He also edited the miscellaneous writings of Mdhler, after whose death
he was regarded as the foremost Roman Catholic Church historian. Since his excommu-
nication he delivered, in the great hall of the Museum at Munich, seven interesting lectures
On the Reunion of the Churches (English translation, with Preface by H. N. Oxenham, of
Oxford; republished, New York, 1872). He was Rector of the University of Munich
during its Jubilee year, 1871-72, and at the celebration of the Jubilee, in July, 1872, h©
acquitted himself with marked ability and scholarly dignity, and received from the Uni-
versity* the Kong of Bavaria, and foreign scholars, the highest honors.
[DSllinger, d. 1890, unreconciled to the papal government. For his later judgment on
Luther and the Prot. Reformation, see his Akad. Vortr. I., 76, and Schan*: Our Fathers'
Faith and Ours, pp. 108, 635. Works not given above: Betirage zur Sektengesch. des
M. A., 1890, Akad. Vortrage, 3 vols., pp. 188-91, and, in connection with Prof. Reusch,
Selbstbiographie des Kard. Bellarmin, 1887. — ED.]
194: THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
JjEEsmSNS,1 FREEDRICH,2 HlJBER,3 MlOHELIS,4 REUSCH,5 LANG-EN,6 VON
ScHULTE,7 and ex-P&re HYACINTHE LoYsoN.8
The centres of Old Catholicism are Munich and Bonn in Germany,
and Geneva and Soleure (also Olten) in Switzerland. Beyond these
two countries it has many isolated sympathies, but no organized form,
and no hold upon the people.9 In September, 1873, the Old Catholics
in the German Empire numbered about one hundred congregations
(mostly in Prussia, Baden, and Bavaria), forty priests, and fifty thou-
sand professed members. Since their more complete organization they
will probably make more rapid progress. Heretofore the movement
in Germany has been more scholastic than popular. It has enlisted
the sympathies of the educated, but not to an equal extent the entliu-
1 Formerly Catholic Professor of Church History in the University of Breslau, now Bishop
of the Old Catholic Church in Germany. He resides at Bonn, and is a gentleman of great
popular eloquence and winning manners.
3 Professor of Church History in Munich, editor of the Domtmenta ad ittustrandum Cone.
Vaticanwn (2 vols.), and of the Diary (Tagebuch wahrend des Vatic. Contils), which gives
an inside view of the Council from his intimate connection with members.
3 Professor of Philosophy at Munich, and author of works on ths Philosophy of the Fathers^
on Jesuitism, and against the last book of Strauss on The Old and New Faith.
* Formerly professor at Braunsberg, and once Catholic member of the Prussian Chamber
of Deputies, now pastor of the Old Catholic congregation at Zurich, an elderly gentleman of
much learning and eloquence.
* Professor of Theology in Bonn, editor of the literary organ of the Old Catholics, and
Acting Secretary of Bishop Reinkens.
6 Likewise Professor of Theology in Bonn, and author of a learned work on the Vatican
decrees examined in the light of Catholic tradition (1878).
7 The first canonist of Europe, the lay leader of Old Catholicism, and able president of its
Congresses, formerly Professor of Canon Law in Prague, now in the University of Bonn. Be-
fore the Council he received many letters and tokens of respect from Pope Pius IX.
8 Born at Orleans, 1827, priest and monk of the order of the Carmelites, formerly esteemed
the most eloquent preacher in France. He broke with his order and with Rome in 1 8G9, and
is now settled at Geneva as pastor of an Old Catholic congregation. His marriage to an
American widow (1872) created almost as much sensation as Luther's marriage to a nun.
He has recently withdrawn from state control, and established an independent Church (1874).
9 The German origin of the movement operates against it in France, which, with all its
Gallican traditions, has, for political reasons, since the war of 1870, become more Romish than
it ever was before. When Volk, at the Old Catholic Congress in Constance, alluded to the
uprising of the JDeutschthum versus the Welschthum. and the intrigues of French Jesuits,
Hyacinthe and Pressense left the hall. Yet the Old Catholic priests, who were elected pas-
tors of Geneva by the Catholic part of the population in October, 1873-— Loyson, Hurtault,
and Charard — are all Frenchmen. Once more Geneva seems to become the centre and
starting-point of a new reformation, which sooner or later will react upon France. Abl>6
Michaud, formerly of the Madeleine in Paris, so far is the only prominent Old Catholic in
France. Among the Irish Catholics there is not the least indication of sympathy with Old
Catholicism, not even in free America. Spain and Italy ought to sympathize with it, for
the Pope is the implacable enemy of Italian unity and the Spanish republic : but they have
kept aloof 10 far from miv progressive religious movement; ami .'•pain has once moie sur-
§ 36. THE OLD CATHOLICS. 195
siasm of the people. The question of Papal Infallibility has no such
direct practical bearing as the question of personal salvation and peace
of conscience, which made the Reformation spread with such irresisti-
ble power over all Western Christendom. The masses of Roman Cath-
olics are either too ignorant or too indifferent to care much whether an-
other dogma is added to the large number already adopted, and have no
more difficulty to believe blindly in Papal Infallibility than in the daily
miracle of transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the mass.1 On the oth-
er hand, however, the Old Catholics are powerfully aided by the wide-
spread indignation against priestcraft, and the serious conflict of the
German Empire and the Swiss Republic with the Papacy, which was
provoked by the Papal Syllabus and the Vatican Council, and may
lead to a thorough revision of the ecclesiastical status of the Continent.
Their ultimate success as a Church must chiefly depend upon the con-
tinued ascendency of the positive Christian element over the negative
and radical (which raised and ruined the c German Catholic' or Ronge
movement of 1844) ; for only the enthusiasm of faith has constructive
power, and that spirit of sacrifice and endurance which is necessary
for the establishment of permanent institutions.
The Old Catholic movement was foreshadowed in the liberal Catholic
literature preceding the Vatican Council, especially Janus; it gathered
strength during the Council ; it uttered itself in a united protest against
the decrees of the Council at a meeting of distinguished Catholic schol-
ars at Nuremberg in August, 1870 ; and it came to an open rupture with
Rome by the excommunication of Dollinger and his sympathizers.
Being called upon by the Archbishop of Munich (his former pupil, and
at first an anti-Infallibilist) to submit to the new dogma of Papal abso>
lutism and Infallibility, Dr. Dollinger, in an open answer dated Munich,
March 28, 1871, declared that, as a Christian, as a theologian, as a his^
torian, and as a citizen, he could not accept the Vatican decrees, for the
rendered herself to the rule of a Bourbon and the Pope (1 875). In England, the famous
pamphlet of Gladstone on the Vatican Decrees (1874) has brought to light the Old Catholic
sympathies of Lord Acton and other prominent English Catholics.
1 When in Cologne, July, 1873, 1 asked a domestic of one of the first hotels where the Old
Catholics worshiped. He promptly replied, 4 You mean the New Protestants. I have nothing to
do with sects ; I am a true Catholic, and mean to die one. ' This seemed to me characteristic of
the popular feeling in Cologne. The Dome was well filled with worshipers all Sunday, while
the Old Catholics had a small though intelligent and respectable congregation in the Garrison
Church, and in the small chapel at the fity Hall. Dr. Tangermann read Latin mass like a
Romish priest, but preached an evangelical sermon in German which would do credit to any
Protestant pastor.
196 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
reasons that they are inconsistent with the spirit of the Gospel and tho
clear teaching of Christ and the Apostles ; that they contradict the whole
genuine tradition of the Church; that the attempt to carry out the
Papal absolutism had been in times past the cause of endless blood-
shed, confusion, and corruption ; and that a similar attempt now must
lead to an irreconcilable conflict of the Church with the State, and of
the clergy with the laity.1 Whereupon Ddllinger was excommunica-
ted April 17, 1871, as being guilty of ' the crime of open and formal
heresy.52
His colleague, Professor Friedrich, incurred the same fate. Other
Bishops, forgetting their recent change of conviction, proceeded with
the same rigor against refractory priests. Cardinal Rauscher suspended
the Lent preacher Pederzani ; Cardinal Schwarzenberg, Professor Pel-
leter (who afterwards became a Protestant); Bishop Fdrster (whose
offer to resign was refused by the Pope) suspended Professors Kein-
kens, Baltzer, and Weber, of Breslau; the Bishop of Ermeland, Profess-
ors Miehelis and Menzel, and Dr. Wollmann, in Braunsberg; the
Archbishop of Cologne deposed the priest Dr. W. Tangermann, of Co-
logne, and suspended Professors Hilgers, Eeusch, Langen, and Knoodt,
of Bonn, who, however, supported by the Prussian Government, retained
their official positions in the University.
1 The following is the memorable protest df this aged divine, which reminds one of Luther's
more hold and defiant refusal at Worms to recant his writings unless convicted of error from
Scripture and reason: 'ALS CHEIST, ALS THEOLOGE, ALS GESCHICHTSKUNDIGER, ALS
BURGER KANN ICH DIESE LEHRE NICHT ANNEHMEN. Nicht als CHRIST : denn sie ist unver-
traglivh mit dem Geiste des Evangeliums und mit den klaren Ausspruchen Christi und der
Apostel; sie will gerade das Imperium dieser Welt aufrichten, welches Christus ablehnte, will
die Herrschaft uber die Gemeinden, wekhe Petrus alien und sich selbst verbot. Nicht als
THEOLOGE: denn die gesammte echte Tradition der Kirche steht ihr unversShnlich entgegen.
Nicht als GESCHICHTSKENNER Icann ich sie annehmen, denn als solcher weiss ich, dass das be-
harrliche Streben, diese Theorie der Weltherrschaft zu verwirklichen, JSuropa Strb'me von Blut
gekostet, ganze Lander verwirrt und heruntergebracht, den schb'nen organise/ten Verfassungs-
bau der alteren Kirche zerruttet und die argsten Missbrauche in der Kirche erzeugt, gen&hrt
und festgehalten hat. Als BURGER endlich muss ich sie von mir weisen, weil sie mit ihren
Anspruchen auf Unterwerfung der Staaten und Monarchen und der ganzen politischen Ord-
nung unter die papstliche Gewalt und durch die eximirte Stellung, wekhe sie fur den Klerus
fordert, den Grund legt zu endloser verderblicher Zwietracht zwischen Staat und Kirche,
zwischen Geistlichen und Laien. Denn das Jcann ich mir nicht verbergen, dass diese Lehre,
an der en Folgen das alte deutsche Reich zu Grunde gegangen ist, falls sie bei dem katholischen
Theil der deutschen Nation herrschend wiirde, sofort auch den Keim eines unheilbaren Siech-
thums in das eben erbaute neue Reich verpflanzen wilrde.1 — ^J. VON DOLUNGER'S MrklQrung
an den Erzbishofvon Munchen-Freising, Miinchen, 1871, p. 17 sq.
* ' Orimen hasreseos extema et formalist
§ 36. THE OLD CATHOLICS. 197
In spite of these summary proceedings of the Bishops, the Old Cath-
olic party, aided by the sympathies of the educated classes, made steady
progress, organizing congregations, holding annual meetings, and en-
listing the secular and religious press. With great prudence the lead-
ers avoided or postponed reforms, till they could be inaugurated and
sanctioned by properly constituted authorities, and moved cautiously
between a timid conservatism and a radical liberalism ; thus retaining
a hold on both wings of the nominal Catholic population.
In the year 1873 the Old Catholics effected a regular Church organ-
ization, and secured a legal status in the German Empire, with the pros-
pect of support from the national treasury. Professor Joseph Hubert
Reinkens was elected Bishop by the clergy and the representatives of
the laity, and was consecrated at Rotterdam by the Old Catholic Bishop
Heykamp, of Deventer (Aug. 11, 1873).J He was recognized in his new
dignity by the King of Prussia, and took the customary oath of alle-
giance at Berlin (Oct. 7). Other governments of Germany followed
this example. (The Empire as such has nothing to do with the Church.)
To complete the organization, the Congress at Constance adopted a
synodical and parochial constitution, which makes full provision for
an equal share of the laity with the clergy in the government of the
Church ; the synodical representation (Synodal-Reprasentanz), or execu-
tive committee, being composed of five laymen and five clergymen,
including the Bishop.2 This implies the Protestant principle of the gen-
eral priesthood of believers, and will prevent hierarchical abuses. Cer-
tain changes in the cultus, such as the simplification of the mass as a
memorial service of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, the substitution of
1 In his Pastoral Letter, Bishop Reinkens disclaims all hierarchical ambition, vain show,
and display, and promises to exercise his office in the spirit of apostolic simplicity as a
pastor of the flock. He lays great stress on the primitive Catholic mode of his election by
the d&rgy and the people, as contrasted with the modern election by the Pope. He claims
to stand in the rank of Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, and those thousands of Bish-
ops who never were elected by the Pope, or were even known to the Pope, and yet are recog-
nized as truly Catholic Bishops. Consecration by one Bishop is canonically valid, though
two or more assistant Bishops are usually present. The late Archbishop Loos of Utrecht
would have performed the act, had he not died a few months before. Rome, of course, con-
siders this election and consecration by excommunicated priests as a mere farce and a damna-
ble rebellion. Pee the Pope's Encyclical of Nov. 21, 1 872, quoted below.
8 See the Entwurf einer Synodal- und Gemeinde-Ordnung, Sect. III. §§ 13 and 14 : « In der
Leitung des altkatholischen Gemeinwesens steht dem Bischof eine von der Synode gewdhlte
Synodal-Reprasentanz zur Seite. Die Synodal-Reprasentanz besteht aus vier Geistlichen und
junfLaien.'
198 THE CBEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
the vernacular language for the Latin, the restoring of the cup to the
iaity, the introduction of more preaching, and the abolition of various
abuses (including the forced celibacy of the clergy), will inevitably fol-
low sooner or later.
The doctrinal status of the Old Catholic denomination was at first
simply Tridentine Eomanism versus Vatican Romanism, or the Creed
of Pius IV. against the Creed of Pius IX.1 This is the ground taken
by the Old Catholics in Holland, and adhered to by them to this day.
But the logic of the protest against modern Popery will hardly allow
the Old Catholics of Germany and Switzerland long to remain in this
position. Their friendly attitude towards Protestants, as officially shown
in their letter to the General Conference of the Evangelical Alliance,
is inconsistent with the Tridentine anathemas. Tridentine Romanism,
moreover, is as much an innovation on oecumenical Catholicism as the
Vatican Romanism is an innovation on that of Trent, and both are in-
novations in the same line of consolidation of the one-sided principle
of authority. There is no stopping at half-way stations. We must
go back to the fountain-head, the Word of God, which is the only final
and infallible authority in matters of faith, and furnishes the best cor-
rective against all ecclesiastical abuses.
The leaders of the Old Catholic Church are evidently on this road.
They still adhere to Scripture and tradition, as the joint rule of faith :
but they confine tradition to the unanimous consent of the ancient un-
divided Church, consequently to the oecumenical creeds, which are held
in common by Greeks, Latins, and orthodox Protestants. They have
1 Their original programme, adopted at the first Congress at Munich, September 21, 1871,
probably drawn up by Dollinger, was very conservative, and included the following articles :
1. We hold fast to the Catholic faith as certified by Scriptures and tradition, and also to
the Old Catholic worship. We reject from this stand-point the new dogmas enacted under the
pontificate of Pius IX., especially that regarding the infallibility and supreme ordinary and
immediate jurisdiction of the Pope.
2. We hold fast to the old constitution of the Church, and reject every attempt to deprive
the Bishops of their diocesan independence. We acknowledge the primacy of the Bishop of
Rome, on the ground of the Fathers and Councils of the undivided Church of antiquity ; but
we deny the right of the Pope to define any article of faith, except in agreement with the
holy Scriptures and the ancient and unanimous tradition of the Church.
3. We aim at a reformation of various abuses of the Church, and a restoration of the rights
of the laity in ecclesiastical affairs.
4. We hope for a reunion with the Greek and Orthodox Russian Church, and for an ulti-
mate fraternal understanding with the other Christian confessions, especially the Episcopal
churches of England and America.
§ 36. THE OLD CATHOLICS. 199
been forced to give up their belief in the infallibility of an oecumenical
Council, since the Vatican Council, which is as oecumenical (from the
Eoman point of view) as that of Trent, has sanctioned what they re-
gard as fatal error. Moreover, Bishop Eeinkens, in an eloquent speech
before the Old Catholic Congress at Constance, disowned all Romish
prohibitions of Bible reading, and earnestly encouraged the laity to read
the Book of Life, that they may get into direct and intimate commun-
ion with God.1 This communion with God through Christ as the only
Mediator, and through his Word as the only rule of faith, is the very
soul of evangelical Protestantism. The Scripture principle, consistent-
ly carried out, must gradually rule out the nnscriptural doctrines and
usages sanctioned by the Council of Trent
But it is not necessary on this account that the Old Catholics should
ever become Protestants in the historical sense of the term. They may
retain those elements of the Catholic system which are not inconsistent
with the spirit of the Scriptures, though they may not be expressly sanc-
tioned by the letter. They may occupy a peculiar position of media-
tion, and in this way contribute their share towards preparing the way
for an ultimate reunion of Christendom. And this is their noble
aim and desire, openly expressed in a fraternal letter to an assembly
of evangelical Christians from nearly all Protestant denominations.
They declare : * We hope and strive for the restoration of the unity
1 I give a few extracts from this address, which was delivered in the famous Council
Hall of Constance, and received with great applause by the crowded assembly: 'The holy
Scripture is the reflection of the sun of righteousness which appeared in Jesus Christ our
Lord. I say, therefore, Read the holy Scriptures. I say more : For the Old Catholics who
intrust themselves to my episcopal direction, there exists no prohibition of the reading of the
Bible. . . . Let nothing hinder you from approaching the Gospel, that you may hear the
voice of the Bridegroom (John iii. 29). Listen to his voice, and remember that, as the flower
turns to the light, and never unfolds all its splendor and beauty except by constantly turning
to the light of the sun, thus also the Christian's soul can not represent the full beauty and glory
of its divine likeness except by constantly turning to this Gospel, in the rays of which its
own fire is kindled. ... Do not read the Scriptures from curiosity, to find things which are
not to be revealed in this world ; nor presumptuously, to brood over things which can not be
explained by men ; nor for the sake of controversy, to refute others ; but read the Scriptures
to enter into the most intimate communion with God, so that you may be able to say, Noth-
ing shall separate me from the love of Christ. ... It is not sufficient to have the Bible in
every house, and to read it at certain hours in a formal and fragmentary manner, but it- ought
to be the light of the soul, to which it turns again and again. I repeat it once more : For
the Old Catholics, no injunction exists against reading the Bible. On the contrary, I admon-
ish you most earnestly : Read again and again in this holy book, sitting down in humility
and joy at the feet of the Lord,/or He alone has words of eternal life.''
VOL. j
200 THE OBEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
of the Christian Church. We frankly acknowledge that no branch oi
it has exclusively the truth. We hold fast to the ultimate view that
upon the foundation of the Gospel, and the doctrines of the Church
grounded upon it, and upon the foundation of the ancient, undivided
Church, a union of all Christian confessions will be possible through
a really oecumenical Council. This is our object and intention in the
movement which has led us into close relations with the Evangelical,
the Anglican, the Anglo-American, the Russian, and the Greek church-
es. We know that this goal can not easily be reached, but we see the
primary evidences of success in the circumstance that a truly Chris-
tian intercourse has already taken place between ourselves and other
Christian churches. Therefore we seize with joy the hand of fellow-
ship you have extended to us, and beg you to' enter into a more in-
timate fellowship with us in such a way as may be agreed upon by
both parties.' l
On the other hand, the Old Catholics have extended the hand of fel-
lowship to the Greeks and Anglo-Catholics, and adopted, at a Union
Conference held in Bonn, Sept,, 1874, an agreement of fourteen theses,
as a doctrinal basis of intercommunion between those Churches which
recognize, besides the holy Scriptures, the binding authority of the
tradition of the undivided Church of the first six centuries. In a sec-
ond Conference, in 1875, they surrendered the doctrine of the double
procession of the Spirit as a peace-offering to the Orientals.2
In the mean time the Pope has cut off all prospect of reconciliation.
In his Encyclical of November 21, 1873, addressed to all the digni-
taries of the Eoman Church, Pius IX., after unsparingly denouncing
the governments of Italy, Switzerland, and Germany, for their cruel
persecution of the Church, speaks at length of * those new heretics,
who, by a truly 'ridiculous abuse of the name, call themselves Old
Catholics,5 and launches at their e pseudo-bishop3 and all his abettors
and helpers the sentence of excommunication, as follows :
* The attempts and the aims of these unhappy sons of perdition appear plainly, both from
other writings of theirs and most of all from that impious and most impudent of documents
which has lately been published by him whom they have set up for themselves as their so-
called bishop. For they deny and pervert the true authority of jurisdiction which is in the
1 Letter of the Congress of Constance, September, 1873, to the General Conference of the
Evangelical Alliance in New York. Comp. also Dbllinger's Lectures on the Reunion of the
Churches, and Hyacinthe Loyson's letter to the General Conference in New York.
a See the documents of the two Bonn Conferences, at the close of Vol. IL
§ 36. THE OLD CATHOLICS. 201
Roman Pontiff and the Bishops, the successors of the Blessed Peter and the Apostles, and
transfer it to the populace, or, as they say, to the community ; they stubbornly reject and
assail the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church ; and,
contrary to the Holy Spirit, who has been promised by Christ to abide in his Church forever,
they audaciouhly affirm that the Koman Pontiff and the whole of the Bishops, priests, and
people who are united with him in one faith and communion, have fallen into heresy by
sanctioning and professing the definitions of the oecumenical Vatican Council. Therefore
they deny even the indefectibility of the Church, blasphemously saying that it has perished
throughout the world, and that its visible head and its Bishops have fallen away ; and that
for this reason it has been necessary for them to restore the lawful Episcopate in their pseudo-
bishop, a man who, entering not by the gate, but coming up by another way, has drawn upon
his head the condemnation of Christ.
'Nevertheless, those unhappy men who would undermine the foundations of the Catholic
religion, and destroy its character and endowments, who have invented such shameful and
manifold errors, or, rather, have collected them together from the old store of heretics, are not
ashamed to call themselves Catholics, and Old Catholics ; while by their doctrine, their nov-
elty, and their fewness they give up all mark of antiquity and of catholicity. . . .
'But these men, going on more boldly in the way of iniquity and perdition, as by a just
judgment of God it happens to heretical sects, have wished also to form to themselves a hie-
rarchy, as we have said, and have chosen and set up for themselves as their pseudo-bishop a
certain notorious apostate from the Catholic faith, Joseph Hubert Reinkens ; and, that noth-
ing might be wanting to their impudence, for his consecration they have had recourse to those
Jansenists of Utrecht whom they themselves, before their falling away from the Church, re-
garded with other Catholics as heretics and schismatics. Nevertheless this Joseph Hubert
Reinkens dares to call himself a bishop, and, incredible as it may seem, the most serene Em-
peror of Germany has by public decree named and acknowledf;ed him as a Catholic bishop,
and exhibited him 10 alfhis subjects as one who is to be regarded as a lawful bishop, and as
such to be obeyed. But the very rudiments of Catholic teaching declare that no one can be
held to be a lawful bishop who is not joined in communion of faith and charity to the rock on
which the one Church of Christ is built; who does not adhere to the supreme pastor to whom
all the sheep of Christ are committed to be fed ; who is not united to the confirmer of the
brotherhood which is in the world.' [This cuts off all Greek Bishops as well. Then follow
the usual patristic texts for the pretensions of Rome.]
* We therefore, who have been placed, undeserving as we are, in the Supreme See of Peter
for the guardianship of the Catholic faith,, and for the maintenance of the unity of the univer-
sal Church, according to the custom and example of our predecessors and their holy decrees,
by the power given us from on high, not only declare the election of the said Joseph Hubert
Reinkens to be contrary to the holy canons, unlawful, and altogether null and void, and de-
nounce and condemn his consecration as sacrilegious : but by the authority of Almighty God
we declare the said Joseph Hubert — together with those who have taken part in his election
and sacrilegious consecration, and whoever adhere to and follow the same, giving aid, favor,
or consent — excommunicated under anathema, separated from the communion of the Church,
and to be reckoned among those whose fellowship has been forbidden to the faithful by the
Apostle, so that they are not so much as to say to them, God speed you !'
As the Pope's letter of complaint to the Emperor of Germany (Au-
gust, 1873), in which he claims jurisdiction, in some sense, over all
baptized Christians, called forth a courteous and pointed reply from
the Emperor disclaiming all intention of persecuting the Catholic
Church while defending the rights of the civil government against
the encroachments of the hierarchy, and informing his Infallibility
that Protestants recognize no other mediator between God and them-
selves than the Lord Jesus Christ; so this Encyclical was met by an
able, dignified, and manly Pastoral from Bishop Reinkens, dated Bonn,
December 14, 1873, in which, after refuting the accusations of the
Pope, he closes with the following words : c Brethren in the Lord, what
shall we do when Pius IX. exhausts the language of reproach and
202 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
calumny, and calls us even the most miserable sons of perdition (mi-
serrimi isti perditionis fili^ to embitter the uninquiring multitude
against us? If we are true disciples of Jesus— as we trust — we have
that peace which the Lord gives, and not the world, and our u heart
will not be troubled, neither be afraid" (John xiv. 27). O how sweetly
sounds the exhortation : " Bless them which persecute you : bless, and
curse not ;" " Eecompense to no man evil for evil ;" " If it be possible,
as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men" (Kom. xii. 14, 17,
18) ; " Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them
that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and per-
secute you ; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in
heaven : for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good,
and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matt. v. 44, 45). Let
us look up to Christ, our example, " who, when he was reviled, reviled
not again" (1 Pet. ii. 21-23). "The peace of God, which passeth all
understanding, keep your hearts and minds through Jesus Christ." '
The Swiss Federal Government, in answer to the charges raised
against it in the same Encyclical, has broken off all diplomatic inter-
course with the Papal court. In a new Encyclical of March 23, 1875,
addressed to the Bishops of Switzerland, Pious IX. confirmed the
condemnation of Nov. 21, 1873, and hurled it with increased severity
against the Old Catholics of that country, f who attack the very foxinda-
tions of the Catholic religion, boldly reject the dogmatic definitions of
the Council of the Vatican, and by every means labor for the ruin of
souls.' He calls upon the faithful to ' avoid their religious ceremonies,
their instructions, their chairs of doctrinal pestilence, which they have
the audacity to set up for the purpose of betraying the sacred doc-
trines, their writings, and contact with them. Let them have no part,
no relation of any kind, with those intruding priests and the apos-
tates who dare exercise the functions of the ecclesiastical ministry,
and who have absolutely no jurisdiction and no legitimate mission at
all Let them hold them in horror as strangers and thieves, who come
only to steal, assassinate, and destroy.'
The Old Catholic movement in Switzerland is more radical and po-
litical than the German, and bears a similar relation to it as the Zwin-
glian Reformation does to the Lutheran. Edward Herzog, an able and
worthy priest of Olten, was elected first bishop by the Swiss Synod,
and consecrated by Bishop Eeinkens at Rheinfelden, Seut- 18* 1876.
§ 37. THE BEFORMATION. PROTESTANTISM AND ROMANISM. 203
FIFTH CHAPTER
THE CREEDS OF THE EVANGELICAL CHURCHES.
General Literature.
There are no complete collections of Protestant Creeds, but several separate collections of the Luther-
an and of the Reformed Creeds, which will be noticed below under the proper sections. The Corpus et
Syntagma Confessionumfidei, Genev. 1654, is chiefly Calvinistic, and the Oxford Sylloge Confessionuw, sub
t&mpus reformandcB ecclesice editarum, 1827 (pp. 454), contains only six confessions (including the Prof.
Fidei Trid. and the Confessfo Saxonica).
On the general history and principles of the Reformation, the reader is referred to the works, corre-
spondence, and numerous biographies of the Reformers (e. g. the Corpus Reformatorum, ed. Bretschneider
and Bindseil ; Luther's Letters, by De Wette, supplemented by Seidemann ; Calvin's Works, new edition
by Baum, Cunitz, and Reuss ; his Letters, by Bonnet ; Herminjard's Correspondance des Reformateurs dans
Us pays de langm franyaise; Strype's Ecclesiastical Memorials, etc. ; the publications of the Parker So-
ciety) ; and the historical works of SUBIDAN, SEOKENDORF, SALIG, DK THOTT, HOTTINGEE, HESS, MAB-
HFINEKH, RANKE, MERLE D'AUJJIGNE, HAGENBAOH (fourth edition, 18TO), GBO. P. FISHER; also SOKAFF
(Principle of Protestantism, 1845), DORNEB (Oeschichte der Protest. Theologie, 186T, pp. 77-329, Bngl. transl.
JEdiub. 1871, 2 vols.), KAHNIS (Die Deutsche Reformation, Leipz. 1872). See lists of literature in GIEBELEB,
Church History, Vol. IV. pp. 9 sqq. (Anglo-Amer. edition), and GEO. P. FISHJCB (of Yale College), The Rtf-
ormation, New York, 1873, Appendix II. pp. 567-591.
§ 37. THE REFORMATION. PROTESTANTISM AND ROMANISM.
Protestant Christendom has a nominal membership of about one
hundred millions, chiefly in the northern and western parts of Europe
and America, and among the most vigorous and hopeful nations of
the earth. It represents modern or progressive Christianity, while
Romanism is mediaeval Christianity in conflict with modern progress,
and the Eastern Church ancient Christianity in repose.
We must first of all distinguish between evangelical or orthodox
Protestantism, which agrees with the Greek and Roman Church in
accepting the holy Scriptures and the oecumenical faith in the Trinity
and Incarnation, and heretical or radical Protestantism, which dissents
from the recumeniciU consensus, and makes a new departure either in
a mystical or in a rationalistic direction. The former constitutes the
great body of nominal Protestantism, and is the subject of this chap-
ter. It includes, in the first line, the Lutheran and the Reformed Con-
fessions, or the various national churches of the Reformation in Eu-
rope and their descendants in America ; and then, in the second line,
all those denominations which have proceeded or seceded from them,
mostly on questions of government or minor points of doctrine, with-
out departing from the essential articles of their faith, such as the
Moravians, Methodists, Mennonites, Baptists, Quakers, Irvingites, and
a number of free churches holding to the voluntary principle.
-204: THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM-
The various Evangelical Protestant churches, viewed as distinct
ecclesiastical organizations and creeds, take their rise directly or in-
directly from the sixteenth century; but their principles are rooted
and grounded in the New Testament, and have been advocated more
or less clearly, in part or in full, by spiritual and liberal minded di-
vines in every age of the Church. The stream of Latin or Western
Christianity was divided in the sixteenth century; the main current
moving cautiously and majestically in the old mediaeval channel, the
other boldly cutting several new beds for the overflowing waters, and
rushing forward, at first with great rapidity and energy, then slack-
ing its speed, and then resuming its forward inarch with the tide
of emigration in a western direction, whither, in the prophetic lan-
guage of the great English idealist, 'the course of empire takes its
way.'
The Reformation of the sixteenth century is, next to the introduc-
tion of Christianity, the greatest event in history. It was no sndden
revolution ; for what has no roots in the past can have no permanent
effect upon the future. It was prepared by the deeper tendencies and
aspirations of previous centuries, and, when finally matured, it burst
forth almost simultaneously in all parts of Western Christendom. It
was not a superficial amendment, not a mere restoration, but a regen-
eration ; not a return to the Augustinian, or Nicene, or ante-Nicene
age, but a vast progress beyond any previous age or condition of the
Church since the death of St. John. It went, through the intervening
ages of ecclesiasticism, back to the fountain-head of Christianity itself,
as it came from the lips of the Son of God and his inspired Apostles.
It was a deeper plunge into the meaning of the Gospel than even
St. Augustine had made. It brought out from this fountain a new
phase and type of Christianity, which had never as yet been fully un-
derstood and appreciated in the Church at large. It was, in fact, a
new proclamation of the free Gospel of St. Paul, as laid down in the
Epistles to the Eomans and Galatians. It was a grand act of eman-
cipation from the bondage of the mediaeval hierarchy, and an assertion
of that freedom wherewith Christ has made us free. It inaugurated
the era of manhood and the general priesthood of believers. It taught
the direct communion of the believing soul with Christ. It removed
the obstructions of legalism,. sacerdotalism, and ceremonialism, which,
§ 37. THE REFORMATION. PROTESTANTISM AND ROMANISM. 205
like the traditions of the Pharisees of old, had obscured the genuine
Gospel and made void the Word of God.1
We do not depreciate mediaeval Catholicism, the womb of the Kef-
ormation, the grandmother of modern civilization. It was an in-
estimable blessing in its time. When we speak of the 'dark ages,' we
should never forget that the Church was the light in that darkness.
She was the training-school of the Latin, Celtic, and Teutonic (partly
also the Sclavonic) races in their childhood and wild youth. She gave
them Christianity in the shape of a new theocracy, with a priesthood,
minute laws, rites, and ceremonies. She acted as a bulwark against
the despotism of the civil and military power, and she defended the
moral interests, the ideal pursuits, and the rights of the people. But
the discipline of law creates a desire which it can not satisfy, and
points beyond itself, to independence and self-government : the law is
a schoolmaster to lead men to the freedom of the Gospel. When the
mediaeval Church had fulfilled her great mission in Christianizing and
civilizing (to a certain degree) the Western and Northern barbarians,
the time was fulfilled, and Christianity could now enter upon the era
of evangelical faith and freedom.
And this is Protestantism. If it were a mere negation of popery, it
would have vanished long since, leaving no wreck behind. It is con-
structive as well as destructive ; it protests from the positive basis of
the Gospel. It attacks human authority from respect for divine au-
thority ; it sets the Word of God over all the wisdom of men.
The Reformation was eminently practical in its motive and aim.
It started from a question of conscience: 'How shall a sinner be
justified before God V And this is only another form of the older
and broader question : ' What shall I do to be saved ¥ The answer
given by the Reformers (German, Swiss, French, English, and Scotch),
with one accord, from deep spiritual struggle and experience, was:
1 By faith in the all-suflScient merits of Christ, as exhibited in the holy
Scriptures.5 And by faith they understood not a mere intellectual
assent to the truth, or a blind submission to the outward authority of
1 It is significant that Christ uses TrapadoffLQ, tradition, only in an unfavorable sense, as
opposed to the Word of God, viz., Matt. xv. 3, 6 ; Mark vii -5, 8, 9, 13. Paul employs the
term in a bad sense, Gal. i. 14 and Col. ii. 8 : in a good sense, of the doctrines of the Gospel,
1 Cor. xi. 2; 2 Thess, ii. 15; iii. 6
206 THE CREEDS OE CHRISTENDOM.
the Church, but a free obedience, a motion of the will, a trust of the
heart, a personal attachment and unconditional surrender of the whole
soul to Christ, as the only Saviour from sin and death. The abso-
lute supremacy and sufficiency of Christ and his Gospel in doctrine
and life, in faith and practice, is the animating principle, the beating
heart of the Reformation, and the essential unity of Protestantism to
this day.
Here lies its vitality and constructive power. From this central
point the whole theology and Church life was directly or indirectly
affected, and a new impulse given to the history of the world in every
direction.
The Beformers were baptized, confirmed, and educated, most of
them also ordained, in the Catholic Church, and had at first no in-
tention to leave it, but simply to purify it by the Word of God. They
shrank from the idea of schism, and continued, like the Apostles, in
the communion of their fathers until they were expelled from it.
When the Pope refused to satisfy the reasonable demand for a ref-
ormation of abuses, and hurled his anathemas on the reformers, they
were driven to the necessity of organizing new churches and setting
forth new confessions of faith, but they were careful to maintain and
express in them their consensus with the old Catholic faith as laid
down in the Apostles' Creed.
The doctrinal principle of evangelical Protestantism, as distinct from
Romanism, is twofold — objective and subjective.
The objective (generally called the formal) principle maintains the
absolute sovereignty of the B:ble, as the only infallible rule of the
Christian faith and life, in opposition to the Eornan doctrine of the
Bible and tradition, as co-ordinate rules of faith. Tradition is not
set aside altogether, but is subordinated, and its value made to depend
upon the measure of its agreement with the Word of God.
The subjective (commonly called the material) principle is the doc-
trine of justification by the free grace of God through a living faith
in Christ, as the only and sufficient Saviour, in opposition to the Bo-
man doctrine of (progressive) justification by faith and good works,
as co-ordinate conditions of justification. Good works are held by
Protestants to be necessary, not as means and conditions, but as re-
sults and evidences, of justification.
§ 37. THE REFORMATION. PROTESTANTISM AND ROMANISM. 207
To these two principles may be added, as a third, the social princi-
ple, which affects chiefly the government and discipline of the Church,
namely, the universal priesthood of believers, in opposition to the ex-
clusive priesthood of the clergy. Protestantism emancipates the laity
from slavish dependence on the teaching and governing priesthood,
and gives the people a proper share in all that concerns the interests
and welfare of the Church; in accordance with the teaching of St
Peter, who applies the term clergy (jcXij/x)^ heritage, 1 Pet. v. 3) to the
congregation, and calls all Christians ' living stones' in the spiritual
house of God, to offer up ' spiritual sacrifices,' * a chosen generation,
a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people,' setting forth c the
praises of him who called them out of darkness into his marvelous
light' (1 Pet. ii. 5, 9 ; comp. v. 1-4 ; Eev. i. 6 ; v. 10 ; xx. 6).
It is impossible to reduce the fundamental difference between Prot-
estantism and Romanism to a single formula without doing injustice
to the one or the other. "We should not forget that there are evangel-
ical elements in Romanism, as there are legalistic and Romanizing
tendencies in certain schools of Protestantism. But if we look at the
prevailing character and the most prominent aspects of the two sys-
tems, we may draw the following contrasts :
Protestantism corresponds to the Gentile type of Apostolic Chris-
tianity, as represented by Paul ; Romanism, to the Jewish type, as rep-
resented by James and Peter, though not in Peter's Epistles (where he
prophetically warns against the fruitful germ of the Papacy, viz., hie-
rarchical pride and assumption), but in his earlier stage and official
position as the Apostle of circumcision. Paul was called afterwards,
somewhat irregularly and outside of the visible succession, as the rep-
resentative of a new and independent apostolate of the Gentiles. The
temporary collision of Paul and Peter at Antioch (Gal. ii. 11) fore-
shadows and anticipates the subsequent antagonism between Protest-
antism and Catholicism.
Protestantism is the religion of freedom (Gal. v. 1) ; Romanism, the
religion of authority. The former is mainly subjective, and makes
religion a personal concern ; the latter is objective, and sinks the in-
dividual in the body of the Church. The Protestant believes on the
ground of his own experience, the Romanist on the testimony of the
Church (comp. John iv. 42). ,
208 THE OBEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Protestantism is the religion of evangelism and spiritual simplicity ;
Romanism, the religion of legalism, asceticism, sacerdotalism, and cere-
monialism. The one appeals to the intellect and conscience, the other
to the senses and the imagination. The one is internal, the other ex-
ternal, and comes with outward observation.
Protestantism is the Christianity of the Bible ; Romanism, the Chris-
tianity of tradition. The one directs the people to the fountain-head
of divine revelation, the other to the teaching priesthood. The former
freely circulates the Bible, as a book for the people ; the latter keeps it
for the use of the clergy, and overrules it by its traditions.
Protestantism is the religion of immediate communion of the soul
with Christ through personal faith ; Romanism is the religion of me-
diate communion through the Church, and obstructs the intercourse
of the believer with his Saviour by interposing an army of subordi-
nate mediators and advocates. The Protestant prays directly to Christ ;
the Romanist usually approaches him only through the intercession of
the blessed Yirgin and the saints.
Protestantism puts Christ before the Church, and makes Christliness
the standard of sound churchliness ; Romanism virtually puts the Church
before Christ, and makes churchliness the condition and measure of
piety.1
Protestantism claims to be only one, but the most advanced portion
of the Church of Christ; Romanism identifies itself with the whole
Catholic Church, and the Church with Christianity itself. The former
claims to be the safest, the latter the only way to salvation.
Protestantism is the Church of the Christian people ; Romanism is
the Church of priests, and separates them by education, celibacy, and
even by their dress as widely as possible from the laity.
Protestantism is the Christianity of personal conviction and inward
experience; Romanism, the Christianity of outward institutions and
sacramental observances, and obedience to authority. The one starts
x This is no doubt the meaning of Schleiermacher's famous formula (Der Christliche Glaube,
Vol. I. § 24) : 'Protestantism makes the relation of the individual to the Church dependent on
his relation to Christ ; Catholicism, vice versa, makes the relation of the individual to Christ
dependent on his relation to the Church.' His pupil and successor, Dr. Twesten, puts the
distinction in this way : ' Catholicism emphasizes the first, Protestantism the second, clause
of the passage of Irenseus : "Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the
Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace." '
§ 38. THE EVANGELICAL CONFESSIONS OF FAITH. 209
from Paul's, the other from James's doctrine of justification. The one
lays the main stress on living faith, as the principle of a holy life ; the
other on good works, as the evidence of faith and the condition of
justification.
Protestantism proceeds from the invisible Church to the visible;
Rome, vice versa, from the visible to the invisible.1
Protestantism is progressive and independent ; Eomanism, conserva-
tive and traditional. The one is centrifugal, the other centripetal. The
one is exposed to the danger of radicalism and endless division ; the
other to the opposite danger of stagnation and mechanical and tyran-
nical uniformity.
The exclusiveness and anti-Christian pretensions of the Papacy, es-
pecially since it claims infallibility for its visible head, make it im-
possible for any Church to live with it on terms of equality and sincere
friendship. And yet we should never forget the difference between
Popery and Catholicism, nor between the system and its followers.
It becomes Protestantism, as the higher form of Christianity, to be
liberal and tolerant even towards intolerant Eomanism.
§ 38. THE EVANGELICAL CONFESSIONS OF FAITH.
The Evangelical Confessions of faith date mostly from the sixteenth
century (1530 to 1577), the productive period of Protestantism, and
are nearly contemporaneous with the Tridentine standards of the
Church of Rome. They are the work of an intensely theological and
polemical age, when religious controversy absorbed the attention of all
classes of society. They embody the results of the great conflict with
the Papacy. A smaller class of Confessions (as the Articles of Dort
and the Westminster Standards) belongs to the seventeenth century,
and grew out of internal controversies among Protestants themselves.
The eighteenth century witnessed a powerful revival of practical re-
ligion and missionary zeal through the labors of the Pietists and Mo-
ravians in Germany, and the Methodists in England and North Amer-
ica, but, in its ruling genius, it was irreligious and revolutionary, and
undermined the authority of all creeds. In the nineteenth century a
1 This is the distinction made by Mohler, who thereby inconsistently admits the essential
truth of the Protestant distinction between the visible and invisible Church, which Bellarmin
denies as an empty abstraction.
210 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
new interest in the old creeds was awakened, and several attempts were
made to reduce the lengthy confessions to brief popular summaries, or
to formularize the doctrinal consensus of the different evangelical de-
nominations. The present tendency among Protestants is to diminish
rather than to increase the number of articles of faith, and to follow
in any new formula the simplicity of the Apostles' Creed ; while Ro-
manism pursues the opposite course.
The symbols of the Reformation are very numerous, but several of
them were merely provisional, and subsequently superseded by maturer
statements of doctrine. Some far exceed the proper limits of a creed,
and are complete systems of theology for the use of the clergy. It
was a sad mistake and a source of incalculable mischief to incorporate
the results of every doctrinal controversy with the confession of faith,
and to bind lengthy discussions, with all their metaphysical distinc-
tions and subtleties, upon the conscience of every minister and teacher.
There is a vast difference between theological opinions and articles of
faith. The development of theology as a science must go on, and will
go on in spite of all these shackles.
As to the theology of the confessions of orthodox Protestantism, we
may distinguish in them three elements, the oecumenical, the Augus-
tinian, and the evangelical proper.
1. The oecumenical element. In theology and Ohristology the Prot-
estant symbols agree with the Greek and Roman Churches, and also in
the other articles of the Apostles3 and Nicene Creeds from the crea-
tion of the world to the resurrection of the body.
2. The Augustinian element is found in anthropology, or the doc-
trines of sin and grace, predestination, and perseverance. Here the
Protestant confessions agree with the system of Augustine, who had
more influence upon the reformers than any uninspired teacher.
The Latin Church during the Middle Ages had gradually fallen into
Pelagian and semi-Pelagian doctrines and practices, although these
had been condemned in the fifth century. The Calvinistic confes-
sions, however, differ from the Lutheran in the logical conclusions
derived from the Augustinian premises, which they hold in common.
3. The Evangelical Protestant and strictly original element is found
in soteriology, and in all that pertains to subjective Christianity, or
the personal appropriation of salvation. Here belong the doctrines
§ 39. THE LUTHERAN AND EEPOBMED CONFESSIONS. 211
of the rule of faith, of justification by faith, of the nature and office
of faith and good works, of the assurance of salvation ; here also the
protest against all those doctrines of Romanism which are deemed in-
consistent with the Scripture principle and with justification by faith.
The papacy, the sacrifice of the mass, transubstantiation, purgatory,
indulgences, meritorious and hypermeritorious works, the worship of
saints, images, and relics are rejected altogether, while the doctrine of
the Church and the Sacraments was essentially modified.
§ 39. THE LTTTHEEAN AND REFORMED CONFESSIONS.
Literature.
MAX. G5BBL: Die religidse Eigenth&mlichkeit der lutker. und rqformirten Kirche. Bonn, 183T. (This
book started a good deal of discussion in Germany on the peculiar genius of the two churches.)
C. B. HUNDESHAGBN : Die Conflicts des Zwinglianismus, Lutherthums, und Calvinisms in der Ber~
nischen LandcsJrirche von 1522-1558. Berne, 1843. (The esteemed author died in Bonn, 1872.)
MmsLE I>'AXJBIGN£ (d. 1872) : Luther and Calvin, translated into English, New York, 1846.
ALEX. SOHWBIZBB : Glaubenslehre der reformirten Kirche. Zurich, 1844, Vol. I. pp. 7-83.
M. SOHNEOKENBURGER : Vergleteh&nde Darstellung des luther. und reform. Lehrbegriffs. Stuttgart, 1865,
2 vols. (Very acute and discriminating.) Comp. the introduction by Guder, the editor.
PHILIP SOHAFF: Germany; its Universities, Theology, and Iteligion. Philadelphia, 1857, Ch. xviii. and
zx., Lutheranism and Reform and the Evang. Union, pp. 167-185.
Essays on the same subject by LiSoKE, in the Deutsche Zeitschrift, Berlin, for 1853, Nos. 3 sqq. ; HACEN-
BAOH, in the Studien und Kritiken for 1854,' Vol. I. pp. 23-34.
JUL. MILLER (Professor in Halle) : Lutheri et Calvini sententice de Sacra Ccena inter se comparator,
Halle, 1858. Also in his Dogmatische Abhandlungen, Bremen, 1870, pp. 4(H-46T.
Catholicism assumed from the beginning, and retains to this day,
two distinct and antagonistic types, the Greek and the Roman, which
represent a Christian transformation of the antecedent and underlying
nationalities of speculative Greece and world-conquering Rome. In
like manner, but to a much larger extent (as may be expected from
the greater liberty allowed to national and individual rights and pecu-
liarities), is Protestantism divide,d since the middle of the sixteenth
century into the LUTHERAN and the EEFOBMED Confessions. To the
former belong the established churches in most of the German States,
in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, and all others which call them-
selves after Luther ; the Reformed— in the historical and Continental
sense of the term1 — embraces the national evangelical churches of
Switzerland, France, Holland, some parts of Germany, England, Scot-
land, with their descendants in America and the British colonies.
The designation Reformed is insufficient to cover all the denomi-
nations and sects which have sprung directly or indirectly from this
1 As used in all Continental works on Church history and symbolics. It means originally
the Catholic Church reformed of abuses, or regenerated by the Word of God.
212 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
family since the Reformation, especially in England during the conflict
of the Established Church with Puritanism and nonconformity ; and
hence in English and American usage it lias given way to sectional
and specific titles, such as Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Congrega-
tionalists, Baptists, Wesleyans or Methodists, etc. The term Calvin-
ism designates not a church, but a theological school in the Reformed
Church, which in some sections allows also Arminian views. Puri-
tanism, likewise, is not a term for a distinct ecclesiastical organiza-
tion, but for a tendency and party which exerted a powerful influence
in the Anglican and other Reformed Churches on questions of doc-
trine, government, discipline, and worship.
Among the original Reformed Churches the ANGLICAN stands out
in many respects distinctly as a third type of Protestantism : it is the
most powerful and the most conservative of all the national or estab-
lished churches of the Reformation, and retains the entire basis of
the mediaeval hierarchy, without the papacy ; it is a compromise be-
tween Catholicism and Protestantism, cemented by the royal suprem-
acy, and leaves room for Romanizing high-churchisrn and Puritanic
low-churchism, as well as for intervening broad-churchism. But its
original doctrinal status was moderately Calvinistic, and for a time it
made even common cause with the ultra-Calvinistic Synod of Dort.
The doctrinal difference between Lutheranism and Reform was
originally confined to two articles, namely, the nature of Christ's pres-
ence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and the extent of God's sov-
ereignty in the ante-historic and premundane act of predestination.
At the Conference held in Marburg, Luther and Zwingli agreed in
fourteen and a half articles, and differed only in the other half of the
fifteenth article, concerning the real presence.1 The Swiss reformer
saw in this difference no obstacle to fraternal fellowship with the
Wittenbergers, with whom, he said, he would rather agree than with
any people on earth, and, with tears in his eyes, he extended his hand
1 The fifteenth and last of the Marhurg articles treats of the Lord's Supper, and after
stating the points of agreement, concludes thus : 'And although at present we can not agree
whether the true body and the true blood of Christ he corporeally present in the bread and
wine (ob der wahre Leib und das wahre Blut Christi hAblic.h i?n Brode und Weine geycnwar-
tig sei), yet each party is to show to the other Christian love, as far as conscience permits' (so
weit es das Gewissen jedem gestattef), and both parties should fervently pray to Almighty God
that by his Spirit he may strengthen us in the true understanding. Amen.'
§ 39. THE LUTHERAN AND REFORMED CONFESSIONS. 213
to Luther ; but the great man, otherwise so generous and liberal, who
had himself departed from the Catholic Church in much more essen-
tial points, felt compelled in his conscience to withhold his hand on
account of a general difference of ' spirit/1 which revealed itself in
subsequent controversies, and defeated many attempts at reunion,
The internal quarrels among Christian brethren, which are found
more or less in all denominations and ages,2 are the most humiliating
and heart-sickening chapters in Church history, but they are overruled
by Providence for the fuller development of theology, a wider spread
of Christianity, and a deeper divine harmony, which will ultimately,
in God's own good time, spring out of human discord.
The two great families of Protestantism are united in all essential ar-
ticles of faith, and their members may and ought to cultivate intimate
Christian fellowship without sacrifice of principle or loyalty to their
communion. Yet they are distinct ecclesiastical individualities, and
Providence has assigned them peculiar fields of labor. Their differ-
ences in theology, government, worship, and mode of piety are rooted
in diversities of nationality, psychological constitution, education, ex-
ternal circumstances, and gifts of the Spirit.
1. The Lutheran Church arose in monarchical Germany, and bears
the impress of the German race, of which Luther was the purest and
strongest type. The Reformed Church began, almost simultaneously,
in republican Switzerland, and spread in France, Holland, England,
and Scotland. The former extended, indeed, to kindred Scandinavia,
and, by emigration, to more distant countries. But outside of Ger-
many it is stunted in its normal growth, or undergoes, with the change
of language and nationality, an ecclesiastical transformation.3 The
Reformed Church, on the other hand, while it originated in the Ger-
man cantons of Switzerland, and found a home in several important
parts of Germany, as the Palatinate, the Lower Rhine, and "(through
1 llhr habt einen andern Geist,' said Luther to Zwingli.
8 The feuds between monastic orders and theological schools in the Roman and Greek
Churches, and the quarrels even in the oecumenical Councils, from the Nicene down to the
Vatican, are fully equal in violence and bitterness to the Protestant controversies in the six-
teenth and seventeenth centuries, and are less excusable on account of the boasted doctrinal
unity of those churches.
3 This is the case with the great majority of Anglicized and Americanized Lutherans, who
adopt Reformed views on the Sacraments, the observance of Sunday, Church discipline, and
other points.
214 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
the influence of the House of Hohenzollern since the Elector Sigis^
mund, 1614) in Brandenburg and other provinces of Prussia, was yet
far more fully and vigorously developed among the maritime and
freer nations, especially the Anglo-Saxon race, and follows its on-
ward march to the West and the missionary fields of the East. The
modern Protestant movements among the Latin races in the South
of Europe likewise mostly assume the Reformed, some even a strictly
Calvinistic type. Converts from the excessive ritualism of Home are
apt to swing to the opposite extreme of Puritan simplicity.
Germany occupies the front rank in sacred learning and scientific
theology, but the future of evangelical Protestantism is mainly in-
trusted to the Anglo-American churches, which far surpass all others
in wealth, energy, liberality, philanthropy, and a firm hold upon the
heart of the two great nations they represent.
2. The Lutheran Church, as its name indicates, was founded and
shaped by the mighty genius of Luther, who gave to the Germans a
truly vernacular Bible, Catechism, and hymn-book, and who thus meets
them at every step in their public and private devotions. We should,
indeed, not forget the gentle, conciliatory, and peaceful genius of Me-
lanchthon, which never died out in the Lutheran Confession, and forms
the connecting link between it and the Reformed. He represents the
very spirit of evangelical union, and practiced it in his intimate friend-
ship with the stern and uncompromising Calvin, who in turn touch-
ingly alludes to the memory of his friend. But the influence of the
'Prceceptor Germanics' was more scholastic and theological than prac-
tical and popular. Luther was the originating, command ing reformer,
* born/ as he himself says, ' to tear up the stumps and dead roots, to
cut away the thorns, and to act as a rough forester and pioneer ;'
while 'Melanchthon moved gently and calmly along, with his rich
gifts from God's own hand, building and planting, sowing and water-
ing.' Luther was, as Melanchthon called him, the Protestant Elijah.
He spoke almost with the inspiration and authority of a prophet and
apostle, and his word shook the Church and the Empire to the base.
He can be to no nation what he is to the German, as little as Wash-
ington can be to any nation what he is to the American.1 And yet,
1 Luther can only be fully understood by a German, while a Frenchman or an Englishman
(with some exceptions, as Coleridge, Hare, Carlyle) is likely to be repelled by some of his
§ 39. THE LUTHERAN AND REFORMED CONFESSIONS. 215
strange to say, with all the overpowering influence o£ Luther, his per-
sonal views on the canon1 and on predestination2 were never accepted
by his followers ; and if we judge him by the standard of the Form of
Concord, he is a heretic in his own communion as much as St. Augus
tine, on account of his doctrines of sin and grace, is a heretic in the
Roman Church, revered though he is as the greatest among the Fathers.
writings, e. #., his coarse book against Henry VIII. Hence the unfavorable judgments of
such scholars as Hallam, Sir William Hamilton, Pusey ; while, on the other hand, even lib-
eral Catholics among German scholars can not but admire him as Germans. Dr. Dollinger,
long before his secession from Rome, said (in his book Kirche und Kirchen): 'Luther ist der
gewaltigste Volksmann, der popularste Charakter^ den Deutschland je besessen. In dem Geiste
dieses Marines, desgrdssten unter den Deutschen seines Zeitalters, ist die protestantische Doctrin
entsprungen. Vor der Ueberlegenheit und schiSpferischen Energie dieses Geistes bog damals
der aufstrebende, thatkraftige Theil der Nation demuthsvoll und glaubig die Kniee.' The
towering greatness of Luther is to the Lutherans a constant temptation to hero-worship, as
Napoleon's brilliant military genius is a misfortune and temptation to France. Lessing ex-
pressed his satisfaction at the discovery of some defects in Luther's character, since he was,
as he says, * in imminent danger of making him an object of idolatrous veneration. The
proofs that in some things he was like other men are to me as precious as the most dazzling
of his virtues.' There are not a few Lutherans who have more liking for Luther's faults
than for his virtues, and admire his conduct at Marburg as much, if not more, than his con-
duct at Worms. A very respectable Lutheran professor of theology resolved the difference
between Luther and Calvin into this: that the one was human, the other inhuman ! Calvin
once nobly said, * Though Luther should call me a devil, I would still revere and love him as
an eminent servant of God.' If he was cruel, according to our modern notions, in his treat-
ment of Servetus, he acted in the spirit of his age, and was approved even by the gentle Me-
lanchthon. His followers need fear no comparison with any other Christians as to humanity
and liberality.
1 He irreverently called the Epistle of St. James an * epistle of straw,' and had objections to
the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse, and the Book of Esther. He was as thoroughly
convinced of the inspiration and authority of the Word of God as the most orthodox divine
can be, but he had free views on the mode of inspiration and the extent of the traditional canon.
9 Luther, in his work De servo arbitrio, against Erasmus, written in 1525, teaches the
slavery of the human will, the dualism in the divine will (secret and revealed), and uncon-
ditional predestination to salvation and damnation, in language stronger than even Calvin
ever used, who liked the views of that book, but objected to some of its hyperbolical expres-
sions (Opera, Tom. VII. p. 142). Melanchthon, who originally held the same Augustinian
theory (like all the Reformers), gradually changed it (openly since 1535) in favor of a syner-
gistic theory. But Luther never recalled his tract against Erasmus ; on the contrary, he
counted it among his best, and among the few of his books which he would not be willing 'to
swallow, like Saturn his own children.' He never made this a point of difference from the
Swiss. In the Articles of Smalcald, 1537 (III. i. p. 318, ed. Hase), he again denied the free-
dom of the will, as a scholastic error; and in his commentary on Genesis (Ch. vi. 6, 18; xxvi),
one of his last works, he taught the same view of the secret will of God as in 1525. Comp.
J. Mt3xT,ER: Lutheri de prcedestinatione et libero arbitrio doctrina, 1832, and his Dogmat.
Abhandlungen, 1870, pp. 187sqq.; LDTKENS: Luther's PrcedestinatlonslehreimZusammenhang
mit seiner Lehre vomfreien Willen, 1858 ; Kb* STUN: Luther's Theologie in ihrer geschichtl.
Entwicklung, 1863, Vol. II. pp. 32-55, 300-331 ; SCHWKIZER: Die protest. Centraldogmen,
1854, Vol. I. pp. 57 sqq. ; DORNER: Geschichte rf-* "rotest. Theologie, 1 867, Vol. I. pp. 194 sqq.
VOL. L— P
216 THE CEEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
The Reformed Churcli had a large number of leaders, as Zwingli,
(Ecolampadius, Bullinger, Calvin, Beza, Cranmer, Knox, but not one
of them, not even Calvin, could impress his name or his theological
system upon her. She is independent of men, and allows full free-
dom for national and sectional modifications and adaptations of the
principles of the Keformation.
3. The Lutheran Confession starts from the wants of sinful man
and the personal experience of justification by faith alone, and finds,
in this c article of the standing and falling Church/ comfort and peace
of conscience, and the strongest stimulus to a godly life. The Re-
formed Churches (especially the Calvinistic sections) start from the
absolute sovereignty of God and the supreme authority of his holy
Word, and endeavor to reconstruct the whole Church on this basis.
The one proceeds from anthropology to theology ; the other, from the-
ology to anthropology. The one puts the subjective or material prin-
ciple of the Reformation first, the objective or formal next ; the other
reverses the order ; yet both maintain, in inseparable unity, the subject-
ive and objective principles of the Reformation.
The Augsburg Confession, which is the first and the most important
Lutheran symbol, does not mention the Bible principle at all, although
it is based upon it throughout;1 the Articles of Smalcald mention
it incidentally;2 and the Form of Concord more formally.3 But the
Reformed Confessions have a separate article de Scriptura Sacra, as
the only rule of faith and discipline, and put it at the head, sometimes
with a full list of the canonical books.4
1 The Preface of the Augshurg Confession declares that the Confession is 'drawn from the
holy Scriptures and the pure Word of God.'
8 Part II. (p. 309) : ' The Word of God, and no one else, not even an angel, can establish
articles of faith.7 ('jRegulam aliam habemus, ut videlicet Verbum Dei condat articulos Jidei,
etprceterea nemo, ne angelus quide?n.')
3 form. Cone.) Part I. or Epit., at the beginning: 'We believe, teach, and confess that the
only rule and standard (unicam regulam et normam), according to which all doctrines and
teachers alike ought to be tried and judged, are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the
Old and New Testaments alone.' Comp. Preface to the Second Part.
* Conf. Helv. II. ch. i. (De Scriptura sancta, vero Dei verbo) : * Credimus et confitemur
Scripturas canonicas sanctorum Propnetarum et Apostokrum utriusque Testament^ ipsum
oerum esse Verbum Dei: et attctoritatem swfficientem ex semetipsis, non ex hominibus habere.1
Conf. Helv. I. (Basil. II.) art. 1 ; Conf. Gall art. 2-5 ; Conf. Scot. art. 18, 19 ; Conf. Belg.
art. 2-7 ; art. AngL art. 6 (Scriptura sacra continet omnia guaz ad salutem sitnt necessaria,
etc., with a list of the canonical books, from which the Apocrypha are carefully distinguished) ;
Westminster Conf. of Faith, ch. i. (more fully), etc. The exception of the first Confession of
§ 39. THE LUTHERAN AND REFORMED CONFESSIONS. 217
4. The Lutheran Church has an idealistic and contemplative, the
Reformed Church a realistic and practical, spirit and tendency. The
former aims to harmonize Church and State, theology and philoso-
phy, worship and art ; the latter draws a sharper line of distinction
between the Word of God and the traditions of men, the Church and
the world, the Church of communicants and the congregation of hear-
ers, the regenerate and the unregenerate, the divine and the human.
The one is exposed to the danger of pantheism, which shuts God up
within the world ; the other to the opposite extreme of deism, which
abstractly separates him from the world. Hence the leaning of the
Lutheran Christology to Eutychianism, the leaning of the Eef ormed to
Nestorianism.
The most characteristic exponent of this difference between the two
confessions is found in their antagonistic doctrines of the Lord's Sup-
per ; and hence their controversies clustered around this article, as the
Nicene and post-JSTicene controversies clustered around the person of
Christ. Luther teaches the real presence of Christ's body and blood
in, with, and under the elements, the oral manducation by unworthy
as well as worthy communicants, and the ubiquity of Christ's body;
while Zwingli and Calvin, carefully distinguishing the sacramental
sign from the sacramental grace, teach — the one only a symbolical,
the other a spiritual real, presence and fruition for believers alone.
The Romish doctrine of transubstantiation is equally characteristic of
the magical supernaturalism and asceticism of Romanism, which real-
izes the divine only by a miraculous annihilation of the natural ele-
ments. Lutheranism sees the supernatural in the natural, Calvinism
above the natural, Romanism without the natural.
5. Viewed in their relations to the mediaeval Church, Lutheranism
is more conservative and historical, the Reformed Church more pro-
gressive and radical, and departs much further from the traditionalism,
sacerdotalism, and ceremonialism of Rome. The former proceeded on
the principle to retain what was not forbidden by the Bible; the latter,
on the principle to abolish what was not commanded.
Basle is only apparent, for it concludes with a submission of all its articles to the supreme au-
thority of the Scriptures (Postremo, hanc nostrum confessionejn judicio sacrce biblicce Scripturce
subjicimus; eoque potticemur^ si ex prcedictis Scripturis in melioribus instituamur, nos omm
tempore Deo et sacrosancto ip$ius Verbo maxima cum gratiarum actione obsecuturos esse1).
218 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
The Anglican Church, however, though moderately Calvinistic in her
Thirty-nine Articles, especially in the doctrine on the Scriptures and the
Sacraments, makes an exception from the other Reformed communions,
since it retained the body of the episcopal hierarchy and the Catholic
worship, though purged of popery. Hence Lutherans like to call it a
* Lutheranizing Church;' but the conservatism of the Church of En-
gland was of native growth, and owing to the controlling influence of
the English monarchs and bishops in the Reformation period.
6. The Lutheran Confession, moreover, attacked mainly the Juda-
ism of Rome, the Reformed Church its heathenism. 'Away with
legal bondage and work righteousness V was the war-cry of Luther ;
*Away with idolatry and moral corruption!' was the motto of Zwin-
gli, Farel, Calvin, and Knox.
7. Luther and Melanchthon were chiefly bent upon the purification
of doctrine, and established State churches controlled by princes, theo-
logians, and pastors. Calvin and Knox carried the reform into the
sphere of government, discipline, and worship, and labored to found a
pure and free church of believers. Lutheran congregations in the ol^
world are almost passive, and most of them enjoy not even the right
of electing their pastor; while well-organized Reformed congregations
have elders and deacons chosen from the people, and a much larger
amount of lay agency, especially in the Sunday-school work. Lu-
ther first proclaimed the principle of the general priesthood, but in
practice it was confined to the civil rulers, and carried out in a wrong
way by making them the supreme bishops of the Church, and reduc-
ing the Church to a degrading dependence on the State.
8. Luther and his followers carefully abstained from politics, and in-
trusted the secular princes friendly to the Reformation with the episco-
pal rights ; Calvin arid Knox upheld the sole headship of Christ, and
endeavored to renovate the civil state on a theocratic basis. This led
to serious conflicts and wars, but they resulted in a great advance of
civil and religious liberty in Holland, England, and the United States.
The essence of Calvinism is the sense of the absolute sovereignty of
God and the absolute dependence of man ; and this is the best school
of moral self-government, which is true freedom. Those who feel
most their dependence on God are most independent of men.3
1 The principles of the Republic of the United States can be traced, through the intervening
§ 39. THE LUTHERAN AND REFORMED CONFESSIONS. 219
9. The strength and beauty of the Lutheran Church lies in its pro-
found theology, rich hymnology, simple, childlike, trustful piety ; the
strength and beauty of the Eeformed Churches, in aggressive ener-
gy and enterprise, power of self-government, strict discipline, mis-
sionary zeal, liberal sacrifice, and faithful devotion, even to martyrdom,
for the same divine Lord. From the former have proceeded Pietism
and Moravianism, a minutely developed scholastic orthodoxy, specula-
tive systems and critical researches in all departments of sacred learn-
ing, but also antinomian tendencies, and various forms of mysticism,
rationalism, and hypercriticisrn. The latter has produced Puritanism,
Congregationalism, Methodism, Evangelicalism (in the Church of En-
gland), the largest Bible, tract, and missionary societies, has built most
churches and benevolent institutions, but is ever in danger of multi-
plying sectarian divisions, overruling the principle of authority by
private judgment, and disregarding the lessons of history.
10. Both churches have accomplished, and are still accomplishing,
a great and noble work. Let them wish each other God's speed, and
stimulate each other to greater zeal. A noble rivalry is far better
than sectarian envy and jealousy. There have been in both churches,
at all times, men of love and peace as well as men of war, with corre-
sponding efforts to unite Lutheran and Eeformed Christians, from the
days of Melanchthon and Bucer, Calixtus and Baxter, down to the
Prussian Evangelical Union, the German Church Diet, and the Evangel-
ical Alliance. Even the exclusive Church of England has entered into
a sort of alliance with the Evangelical Church of Prussia in jointly
founding and maintaining the Bishopric of St. James in Jerusalem.1
The time for ecclesiastical amalgamation, or organic union, has not
yet come, but Christian recognition and union in essentials is quite con-
sistent with denominational distinctions in non-essentials, and should be
cultivated by all who love our common Lord and Saviour, and desire
the triumph of his kingdom.
link of Puritanism, to Calvinism, which, with all its theological rigor, has been the chief edu-
cator of manly characters and promoter of constitutional freedom in modern times. The
inalienable rights of an American citizen are nothing but the Protestant idea of the general
priesthood of believers applied to the civil sphere, or developed into the corresponding idea
of the general kingship of free men.
1 Chiefly the work of Chevalier Bunsen and his congenial friend, Frederick William IV.
THE CBEEDS OF CHKISTENDOM.
SIXTH CHAPTER
THE CBEEDS OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH.
§ 40. THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Literature.
I. COLLECTIONS OF THE LUTHERAN SYMBOLS.
(1.) Latin Editions.
CONOOBDIA. Pia et unanimi con^ensu repetita Confessio Fidei et Doctrince JSlectorum, Principum et
Ordinum Imperil, atque eorundem Theologorum, qui Augustanam Confessionem amplectuntur et nomina
ma huic libra subscripserunt. Cui ex Sacra ScripturOj unica ilia veritatis norma et regula quorundam
Articulorum, qui post Doctoris Martini Lutheri felicem ex hac vita exitum, in controversial venerunt,
solida accessit Declaratio, etc. (By Selnecker.) Lips 1580, 4to ; 1584. The second ed. lcommuni consilio
et mandate MectorumS Another edition, Lips. 1602, 8vo, by order and with a Preface of Christian II.,
Elector of Saxony ; republished, Lips, 1606, 1612, 1613, 1626, 8vo ; Stettin, 1654, 8vo ; Lips. 1C69, 8vo ; 167T.
The second ed. (T46 pages) is the authentic Latin editio princeps.
The same edition, cum Appendice tripartita Dr. ADAMI REOHENBEBGII, Lips, first, 1677, 1678, 1698,
1712, 1725 ; last, 1742. Eechenberg's edition is the standard of reference, followed by the later Latin
editions in the paging.
EGOLESS EVANGELIOJS LIBBI SYMBOLIOI, etc. C. M. PFAFFITJS, ex editionibus primis et prasst, recenwit,
varias lectiones adjunxit, etc. Tubing. 1730, 8vo.
LTBRI SYMHOLIOI EOOLESI^E EVAN GELT GO-LUTHERANS accuratius editi variique generis animadvers. ac
disput. illustrati a Mioii. WEBERO. Viteb. 1809, 8vo.
LIBBI SYMBOLIOI EOOLKBIJB EVANGELIC^ Ad fidem optim. exemplorum recens. 3. A. H. TITTMANN.
Lips. 1817, 8vo ; 1827.
LIBBI SYMBOLIOI EOOLESIJS EVANGELIC.*: SIVE CONOOBDIA. Recent C. A. HASE. Lipsiae, 1827, Svo ;
1837, 1845.
LIBBI SYMBOLIC! EOOLESLSS LUTHERANS ad editt. prindpes et ecclesice auetoritate probat. rec., prcecipuam
lectionum diversitatem notavit, Christ. IL ordinumqite evangelicor. prafationes, artic. Saxon, visitator. et
Confut. A. C. Pontiftc. adj. H. A. GUIL. MEYEB. Getting. 1830, Svo.
CONOOBDIA. Libri Symbolid JScclesice Evang. Ad edit. Lipsienaem, 1584 ; Berolin. (Schlawitz), 1857, Svo.
(2.) German Editions.
CONOOBDIA. ilin'' Christliche, WiderTiolete, einm&tige Bekenntnus nachbenanter Churf&rsten, F&r-
tten und Stende AugspwgiscJier Confession, und derselben zu ende des Bucks imderschriebe7ier Theologen
Lere und Glaubens. Mit angehefter, in Qottes uort, als der einigen Richtechnur, wohlgegrundter erklerung
etlicher Artickelt bei welchen nach D. Martin Luther's seligen absterben disputation und streit vorgef alien.
Aus einhelliger vergleichung und bevehl obgedwhter Churfursten, Fursten und Stende, derwlben Landen,
Eirchen, Schulen und Nachkommen, zum underrieht und warnung in Druck verfertiget. Mit Churf. Gnaden
zu Sachsen befreihung. Dresden, 1580, fol. (See the whole title in Corp. Ref. Vol. XXVI. p. 443.)
CONOOBDIA. Magdeburg, 1580, 4to, two ed. ; Tubingen, 1580, fol. ; Dresden, 1581, 4to ; Frankfurt a. O.,
1581, fol. ; Magdeburg, 1581, 4to ; Heidelberg, 1582, fol., two ed. ; Dresden, 1598, fol. ; Tubingen, 1599, 4to ;
Leipzig, 1603, 4to; Stuttgart, 1611, 4to ; Leipzig, 1622, 4to ; Stuttgart, 1660, 4to ; 1681, 4to.
CONOOBDIA. Mit HEINE. PIPMNG'B Hist, theol. Eiril. zu den symb. Schriften der Evang. Luth. Kirchen.
Leipz. 1703, 4to ; 2te Ausg. mit CHBIST. WEISSEN'S Schlussrede. Leipz. 1739, 4to.
CHUISTLIOHES CONOOBDIENBTTOH, etc., von SIEGM. JAO. BAUMGABTEN. Halle, 1747, 2 vols. Svo.
CHBISTL. CONOOBDIENBUOH mit der Leipziger Theol Facultaet Vorrede. Wittenberg, 1760, Svo ; 1766, 1789.
DIE SYMB. BUOHBB DEB EV. LUTH. KIBOHE, etc., von J. W. SOHOPFF. Dresden, 1826-27, Svo.
CONOOBDIA. Die Symb. Bucher der ev. luth. Kirche, etc., von P. A. KOETHE. Leipzig, 1830, Svo.
EVANGEL. CoNooBDiENBtron, etc., von «T. A. DETZEB. Niirnberg, 1S30, 1842, 1847.
EVANGEL. CONOOBDIENBUOH, etc. , von FB. W. BODEMANN. Hanover, 1843.
CHEISTLIOUES CONOOBDIENBUOH, New York, 1854.
(3.) German-Latin Editions.
CONOOBDIA, Oermanico-Latina ad optima et antiquissfma exempla recognita, adjectis fideliter allegator.
,dietor. S. Scr. capitibus et vers, et testimoniorum P. P. aliorumque Swiptorum locis. . . . cum approbations
FaculL Theol. Lips. Wittenb. et Rostoch. Studio CH. REINEOOII. Lips. 1708, 4to ; 1735.
CHBISTLIOHES CONOOBDIENBUOB:. Deutsch und Latrintech mit historischen Einleitungen J. G.WALOH'S.
Jena, 1750, Svo.
DIE SYMBOLISOnEN BtiOHEB DEB EVANG. LTTTHEB. KlBOHE, deutsch Und foteinisch, etC., VOn J. F. MIJLLEB
(of Windsbach, Bavaria), 1847 ; 3d ed. Stuttgart, 1869. (A very useful edition.)
§ 40. THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS. 221
(4.) Translations.
Dutch: CONOOBMA of Lutersche Geloofs Belydenis irtt licht gegeven door ZACH. DEZIUS. Rotterdam,
1715, 8vo.
Swedish: LIBBI CONOORDIJS VEESIO SDEOIOA, CHBISTELIGA, ENHELLIGA, OOH UPBBPADK OOH LAKAS, etc.
Norkoping, 1730, 4to.
English : THB CHBISTIAN BOOK OP CONOOBD, or Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Luth&ran Church, trans-
lated by AMBROSE and SOOBATES HENKEL (two Lutheran clergymen of Virginia), with the assistance of sev-
eral other Lutheran clergymen. Newmarket, Virginia, 1851 ; 2d ed. revised, 1854. This is the first and
only complete English edition of the Book of Concord ; but the translation (made from the German) is
not sufficiently idiomatic.
II. HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL WOEKS ON THE LUTHERAN SYMBOLS IN GENERAL.
Jo. BENEDICT CABPZOV : Zsagoge in libros ecclesiarum Lutheranarum symbolicos* Opus posthumum a
J, OLEABIO: Continuatum ed. J. B. CABPZOV (JUius). Lipsiae, 1665, 4to ; 1675, 1691, 1699, 1725.
Jo. GEOBG WALOH: IntroAuctio in libros Ecclesice Isutherance symbolicos, observationibus historicis et the-
ologicis illustrata. Jense, 1732, 4to.
J. ATJBB. FABRICITJS : Centifolium Lutheranum. Hamb. 1728-30, 2 vols. 8vo.
S. J. BAUMGAETEN : Erleuterungen der im christlichen Concordienbuch enthaltenen symbolischen Schriften
der evang. luth. Kirche, nebst einem Anhange von den ubrigen Eekenntnissen und feierlichen Lehrbuchern
in gedachter Kirche. Halle, 1747.
J. CHBISTOPH. K<EOHEB : Bibliotheca theologian symbolicce et catechetical. Guelph. et Jense, 1751-69, 2 vols.
JAO. W. FRUEBLIN : Bibliotheca symb. evang. Lutherana. Accedunt appendices duce; I. Ordinationes et
Agenda,- II. Catechismus ecclesiarum nostrarum. Getting. 1752. Another enlarged edition by J.BAB-
THOL. RIEDEBEB. Nurnberg, 1768, 2 vols. 8vo.
J. G. WALOH : Bibliotheca theologica selecta. Jena, 1757-65, 4 vols. 8vo.
CIIB. GUIL. FB. WALOH : Breviarium theol symb. eccles. luther. Gottingen, 1765-1781, 8vo.
EDUABD KOLLNKB : Symbolik der lutherischen Kirche. Hamburg, 1837.
J. F. MULLEB: Die symb. Mcher der evang. luth. Eirche. Stuttgart, 1847; 3d ed. 1869. Introduction
pp. cxxiv.
CHABLES P. KBAUTH (Dr. and Prof, of Theology in the Evang. Theol. Seminary in Philadelphia) : The
Conservative Reformation and its Theology, as represented in the Augsburg Confession and in the History
and literature of the Evang. Lutheran Church, Philadelphia, 1871.
For fuller lists of editions and works, see Feuerlm (ed. Riederer), J. G. Walch, Kollner, 1. c., and the
26th and 27th vols. of the Corpus Reformatorum, ed. Bindseil.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church, in whole or in part, acknowledges
nine symbolical hooks : three of them are inherited from the Catholic
Church, viz., the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed (with the Filioque),
and the Athanasian Creed ; six are original, viz., the Augsburg Con-
fession, drawn up by Melanchthon (1530), the Apology of the Confes-
sion, by the same (1530), the Articles of Smalcald, by Luther (1537),
the two Catechisms of Luther (1529), and the Form of Concord, pre-
pared by six Lutheran divines (1577).
These nine symbols constitute together the BOOK OF CONCORD (Con-
cordia, or Liber Concordice, GoncordienbuGK), which was first published
by order of Elector Augustus of Saxony in 1580, in German and Latin,
and which superseded older collections of a similar character.1
The Lutheran symbols are not of equal authority. Besides the
1 See an account of the various Corpora Doctrinw in Baumgarten, Erlauterungen, etc., pp.
247-282; Kollner, Symbolik, I. pp. 96 sqq. ; and Miiller, Symb. Bucher, pp. cxxii. sqq. The
Oldest was the Corpus Doctrines Christiana Philippicum, or Misnicum, 1560, which contained
only Melanchthonian writings, and was followed by several other collections of a more strictly
Lutheran character.
222 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
three oecumenical Creeds, the Augsburg Confession is most highly es-
teemed, and is the only one which is generally recognized. Next to
it comes the Shorter Catechism of Luther, which is extensively used
in catechetical instruction. His Larger Catechism is only an expan-
sion of the Shorter. The Apology is valuable in a theological point
of view, as an authentic commentary on the Augsburg Confession.
The Smalcald Articles have an historical significance, as a warlike
manifesto against Eoine, but are little used. The Form of Concord
was never generally received, but decidedly rejected in several coun-
tries, and is disowned by the Melanchthonian and unionistic schools
in the Lutheran Church.
Originally intended merely as testimonies or confessions of faith,
these documents became gradually binding formulas of public doc-
trine, and subscription to them was rigorously exacted from all clergy-
men and public teachers in Lutheran State churches.1 The rational-
istic apostasy, reacting against the opposite extreme of symbololatry
and ultra-orthodoxy, swept away these test-oaths, or reduced them to
a hypocritical formality. The revival of evangelical Christianity,
since the tercentenary jubilee of the Eeforrnation in 1817, was fol-
lowed by a partial revival of rigid Lutheran confessionalism, yet not
so much in opposition to the Eeformed as to the Unionists in Prussia
and other German States, where the two Confessions have been amal-
gamated. The meaning and aim of the Evangelical Union in Prus-
sia, however, was not to set aside the two Confessions, but to accom-
modate them in one governmental household, allowing them to use
either the Lutheran or the Heidelberg Catechism as before. The chief
trouble was occasioned by the new liturgy of King Frederick Wil-
liam III., which was forced upon the churches, and gave rise to the
Old Lutheran secession. In the other States of Germany, and in Scan-
dinavia and Austria, the Lutheran churches have, with a separate gov-
ernment, also their own liturgies and forms of ordination, with widely
differing modes of subscription to the symbolical books.2
1 As early as 1533 a statute was enacted in Wittenberg by Luther, Jonas, and others, which
required the doctors of theology, at their promotion, to swear to the incorrupt doctrine of the
Gospel as taught in the symbols. It was only a modification of the oath customary in the
Koman Catholic Church. After the middle of the sixteenth century, subscription began to
be enforced, on pain of deposition and exile. See KOLLNBR, Symb., I. pp. 106 sqq.
8 "Kollner, I. pp. 121 sqq., gives a number of Verpflichtungsformeln in use in Europe.
§ 40. THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS. 223
In the United States, the Lutherans, left free from the control of
the civil government, yet closely connected with the doctrinal and
confessional disputes of their brethren in Germany, are chiefly di-
vided into three distinct organizations, which hold as many different
relations to the Symbolical Books, and are, in fact, three denomina-
tions under a common name, viz. : the GENERAL SYNOD OF THE EVAN-
GELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE UNITED STATES, organized in 1820 ;
the SYNODICAL CONFERENCE OF NORTH AMERICA, organized in 1872;1
and the GENERAL COUNCIL, which, under the lead of the old Synod of
Pennsylvania, seceded from the General Synod, and met first at Fort
Wayne, Indiana, Nov. 20, 1867. The first has its theological and lit-
erary centre in Gettysburg, the second at St. Louis and Fort Wayne,
the third in Philadelphia.
The ' General Synod,3 which is composed chiefly of English-speak-
ing descendants of German immigrants, and sympathizes with the
surrounding Reformed denominations, adopts simply cthe Augsburg
Confession as a correct exhibition of the fundamental doctrines of
the divine Word,' without mentioning the other symbolical books at
all, and allows a very liberal construction even of the Augsburg Con-
fession, especially the articles on the Sacraments.2 With this basis
1 [The statements must be modified in view of the organic unions and Church federa-
tions which have recently been formed within the Lutheran communions — movements
encouraged by the 400th anniversaries of the XCV Theses, 1917, and the Augsburg
Confession, 1930. To follow a statement furnished by the Rev. G. L. Kieffer, Statistician
and Librarian of the National Luth. Council — the Luth. churches of the U. S. and Canada,
1930, had a membership of 2,852,843 communicants. Two-thirds of the number are
embraced in three corporate groups, namely, The United Luth. Ch. of Am., formed 1918,
with 971,187 members; The Am. Luth. Ch., formed 1930 with 340,809 members; 1?h&
Evang. Luth. Synod of Missouri, formed 1847, with 702,056 members. Two cooperative
federations exist, namely: 1. The Am. Luth. Conference with 926,009 members, formed
1930, consisting of five bodies, The Am. Luth. Ch., The Augustana Synod with 234,434
members, the Norwegian Luth. Ch., with 303,358 members, The Luth. Free Ch. and the
United Danish Churches with 47,408 members. 2. The Evang. Synod. Luth. Conference
of N. Am., founded 1873, having 873,484 members, and consisting of five groups of which
the Missouri Synod is much the largest. In addition to the United Luth. Ch. of Am.
and the groups joined in the federations there are seven independent synods with 75,397
members. The groups are not to be regarded "as separate denominations, their main
difference being in a gradual gradation from the freedom of the universal priesthood of
believers to a more or less highly developed legalistic control of the individual." They
cooperate in certain general movements through a National Luth. Council and some of
the independent synods support the missions of the larger groups. — ED.]
* 'We receive and hold, with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of our fathers, the Word
of God, as contained in the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as the only
224 THE C&EEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
the Lutheran Synod of the Southern States, which was organized dur-
ing the civil war, is substantially agreed.1
The Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America, which is so
far almost exclusively German as to language, requires its ministers
to subscribe the whole Book of Concord (including the Form of Con-
cord), 'as the pure, unadulterated explanation and exposition of the
divine Word and will.'2
With the Missourians are agreed the Buffalo and the Iowa Luther-
ans, except on the question of the origin and nature of the ministerial
office, which has been the subject of much bitter controversy between
them.
The ' General Council,' which is nearly equally divided as to lan-
guage and nationality, stands midway between the General Synod
and the Synodical Conference. It accepts, primarily, the ' Unaltered
Augsburg Confession in its original sense,' and, in subordinate rank,
the other Lutheran symbols, as explanatory of the Augsburg Confes-
sion, and as equally pure and Scriptural.3
infallible rule of faith and practice, and the Augsburg Confession, as a correct exhibition of
the fundamental doctrines of the Divine Word, and of the faith of our Church founded upon
that Word.' (Constitution of General Synod, adopted at Washington, 1869, Art. II. Sect. 3.)
* * We receive and hold that the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, and the
only infallible rule of faith and practice. We likewise hold that the Apostles' Creed, the
Nicene Creed, and the Augsburg Confession contain the fundamental doctrines of the sacred
Scriptures ; and we receive and adopt them as the exponents of our faith. '
a 'Ich erkenne die drei Hauptsymbole der [alten\ Kirche, die ungeanderte Augsburgische Con-
fession und der en Apologie, die Schmalcaldischen Artikel, die beiden Catechismen Luther s und
die Concordienformelfur die reine, ungefalschte JSrklarung und Darlegung des gdttUchen Wortes
und Will ens, bekenne mich zu denselben ah zu meinen eigenen JBekenntnissen und will mein
Amt bis an mein Ende treulich und fleissig nach denselben ausrichten. Dazu starke mich
Gott durch seinen heiligen Geist I Amen.1 (Ordination vow in the Kirchen-Agende, St. Louis,
1856, p. 173.) Here the Lutheran system of doctrine is almost identified with the Bible, ac-
cording to the adage :
1 Gottes Wort und Luth&r'a Lehr
Vergehet nun und nimm&rmeJirS
3 * We accept and acknowledge the doctrines of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession in its
original sense as throughout in conformity with the pure truth, of which God's Word is the
only rule. We accept its statements of truth as in perfect accordance with the canonical Script-
ures ; we reject the errors it condemns, and believe that all which it commits to the liberty
of the Church, of right belongs to that liberty. In thus formally accepting and acknowledging
the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, we declare our conviction that the other Confessions of
the Evangelical Lutheran Church, inasmuch as they set forth none other than its system of
doctrine and articles of faith, are of necessity pure and Scriptural. Pre-eminent among such
accordant, pure, and Scriptural statements of doctrine, by their intrinsic excellence, by the
great and necessary ends for which they were prepared, by their historical position, and by the
genaral judgment of the Church, are these : the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the
§ 41. THE AUGSBURG CONCESSION, 1530. 225
§ 41. THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION, 1530.
Literature.
I. EDITIONS, Latin and German. In the general collections of Lutheran Symbols, by REOHENBERG,
WALOH, HASE, MULLBR, etc. (see § 40).
II. SEP ABATE EDITIONS of the Augs. Conf.—in Latin or German, or both— by TWESTEN (1816), WINEB
(1825), TITTMANN (1830), SPIEKER (1830), M. WEBER (1830),WiGGERs (1830), BEYSOHLAG (1830), FUNK (1830),
FORSTEMANN (1833), BARTER (1838). The best critical edition of the Latin and German texts, with all the
variations, is contained in the Corpus Reformatorum, ed. BBETSOHNEHDER and BINDBEIL, Vol. XXVI.
(issued, Brunsvigse, 1858), pp. 263 sqq.
For lists of older editions, see KOLLNEB, Symbolik, I. p. 344-353, and BINDSEIL, in Corp. Ref. Vol. XXVI.
pp. 211-263.
III. ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS. In HE-STEEL'S Book of Concord, 1854, and a better one by Dr. CHARLES P.
KBATTTH: The Augsburg Confession, literally translated from the original Latin, with the most important
Additions of the German Text incorporated, together with Introduction and Notes. Philadelphia, 1869. The
same, revised for this work, Vol. H.pp.1 sqq.
IV. HISTORICAL and CRITICAL documents and works on the Augsburg Confession:
PHILEPM MELANTHONIS Opera in the second and twenty-sixth volumes of the Corpus Reformatorum,
ed. BBETSOHNEIDER and BINDSEIL. Vol. II. (Halis Saxonum, 1835) contains the Epistles of Melanchthon
from Jan. 1, 1530, to Dec. 25, 1535 ; Vol. XXVI. (Brunsv.1858, pp. 7T6), the Augsburg Confession itself, with
all the preliminary labors and important documents connected therewith.
LUTHER'S Briefe, in DE WETTB'S ed., Vol. IV. pp. 1-180.
E. SAL. CYPRIAN : Historia der Augsburgischen Confession, etc. Gotha, 1730, 4to.
CHIUST. AUG. SALIG: VollstcindigeHistorie der Augsburg. Confession und derselben Apologie, etc. SThle.
Halle, 1730-35, 4to.
G. G. WEBE& : Eritische Qeschichte der Augsb. Conf. aus archivalischenNachrichten. Frankf. a. M. 1783-84,
2 vols.
K. PI-APP: Geschichte ties Reichstags zu Augsburg, imJahrlB&Q, und des Augsb. Glaubensbekenntnism bis
aufdie neueren Zeiten. Stuttgart, 1830, 8vo ; 2 Parts.
CARL EDTTARD FOBSTEMANN: Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte des Reichstags zu Augsburg, imJahrlQSQ,
etc., 2 vols. Halle, 1833-35, 8vo.
C. ED. FOBSTEMANN : Neues Urkundenb. zur Gesch. der ev. Kirehen-Reform. Hamb. 1842, Vol. I. pp. 357-
380. Die Apologie der Augsburg. Confession in ihrem ersten Entwurfe.
A. G. HUDELBACH : Die Augsb. Conf. aus und nach den Quellen, etc. Leipzig, 1829. Histor. critische JEin-
leit. in die A ugsb. Conf., etc. Dresden, 1841.
J. R. CALINIOH : Luther und die Augsb. Confession (gekrdnte PreisschrifC). Leipz. 1861.
G. PLITT : ffinleitung in die Augustana. Erlangen, 1867-68, 2 Parts.
O. ZtfoKLER: Die Augsburgische Confession als Lehrgrundlage der deutschen Reformationskirche histo-
risch und exegetisch untersucht. Frankfurt a. M. 1870.
Comp. also RANKM: Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter derReformation,IIL pp.186 sqq. (3d ed. 1852), and
the relevant sections in MARHEINEKE, MERLE D'AtrBiGNg, HAGENBAOH, and FISHER, on the History of the
Reformation.
See lists of Literature especially in KOLLNER, Symb. I. pp. 150 sqq., 345 sqq. ; also J. T. MILLER, Die
Symb. Bucher der evang. luth. Eirche, XVII. ; C. P. KRAUTH, Select Analytical Bibliography of the Augsb.
Conf. (Phila. 1858) ; and ZOOKLER, Die Augsb. Conf. pp. 1, 8, 15, 21, 31, 35, 44, 52, 61, 74> 85-88; and Corp.
Ref. Vol. XXVI. pp. 102 sqq.
ORIGIN AKD HISTORY.
The Augsburg Confession, at first modestly called an Apology > after
the manner of the early Church in the ages of persecution, was occa-
sioned by the German Emperor Charles V., who commanded the Lu-
theran Princes to present, at the Diet to be held in the Bavarian city
of Augsburg, an explicit statement of their faith, that the religious
Smalcald Articles, the Catechisms of Luther, and the Formula of Concord, all of which are,
with the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, in the perfect harmony of one and the same Script-
ural faith.' (Principles of Faith and Church Polity of the Gen. Council, adopted Nov. I8G7,
Sections VIII. and IXO
226 THE CBEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
controversy might be settled, and Catholics and Protestants be united
in a war against the common enemies, the Turks.1 Its deeper cause
must be sought in the inner necessity and impulse to confess and forrn-
iilarize the evangelical faith, which had been already attempted before.
It was prepared, on the basis of previous drafts, and with conscientious
care, by Philip Melanchthon, at the request and in the name of the
Lutheran States, during the months of April, May, and June, 1530, at
Ooburg and Augsburg, with the full approval of Luther. It was signed,
August 23, by seven German Princes (the Elector John of Saxony
and the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, etc.) and the deputies of two free
cities (Nuremberg and Reutlingen). This act required no little moral
courage, in view of the immense political and ecclesiastical power of
the Roman Church at that time. When warned by Melanchthon of
the possible effects of his signature, the Elector John of Saxony no-
bly replied : f I will do what is right, unconcerned about my electoral
dignity ; I will confess my Lord, whose cross I esteem more highly
than all the power of the earth.'
On the 25th of June, 1530, the Confession was read alond, in the
German language,2 before the assembled representatives of Church
and State, and in the hearing of a monarch in whose dominions the
sun never set.
This formed an important epoch in the history of the Reformation.
The deputies, and the people who stood outside, listened attentively
for two hours to the new creed. The Papists were surprised at its
moderation. The Bishop of Augsburg is reported to have said pri-
vately that it contained nothing but the pure truth. Duke William of
Bavaria censured Dr. Eck for misrepresenting to him the Lutheran
opinions ; and when the Romish doctor remarked that he conld refute
1 The imperial letter convening the diet, dated Bologna, Jan. 21, 1530, was purchased
by J. P. Morgan, 1911, for $25,000 and presented to William II., who, in turn, decorated
Mr. Morgan with the order of the Black Eagle. — ED.
2 By Dr. Christian Baier, Vice-Chancellor of the Elector of Saxony, after some intro-
ductory remarks of Chancellor Briick, who composed the Preface and the Epilogue; see
below. The Emperor at first did not want to have it read at all, but simply presented;
yielding this point, he sought to diminish its effect by having it read in Latin, but the
Lutheran Princes resisted, and carried their point. 'We are on German soil,' said the
Elector John, 'and therefore I hope your Majesty will allow the German language.' He
did not allow it, however, to be read in a public session of the Diet in the large City Hall,
but merely before a select company of Princes, counselors, and deputies of cities, in the
small chapel of the episcopal palace, where he resided.
§ 41. THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION, 1530. 227
them with the Fathers, though not with the Scriptures, the Duke re-
plied, 'I am to understand, then, that the Lutherans are within the
Scriptures, and we are on the outside.5 The Emperor himself, a
bigoted Spaniard, a master in shrewd policy, little acquainted with
the German language and spirit, and still less with theology, after
respectfully listening for a while, fell asleep during the delivery,1
but graciously received the Latin copy for his own use, and handed
the German to the Elector of Mayence for safe keeping in the im-
perial archives, yet prohibited the publication without his permission.
Both copies are lost.
The Diet ordered a committee of about twenty Romish theologians,
among whom were Eck, Faber, Cochlseus, and Wimpina, to prepare a
refutation of the Confession on the spot. Their scholastic Confu-
tatio, the result of five successive drafts, was a far inferior produc-
tion, and made little impression upon the Diet, but it fairly ex-
pressed the views of the Emperor and the majority of the States, and
was accepted as a satisfactory refutation of the Confession.2 Me-
lanchthon answered it by his ' Apology of the Augsburg Confession,3
but the Diet refused even to receive the reply; and, after several
useless conferences, resolved, Sept. 22 and Nov. 19, 1530, to proceed
with violent measures against the Protestants if they should not re-
turn to the Catholic faith before the 15th of April of the following
year.
The Elector John, justly styled the Constant, with all his loyalty
to the Emperor and wish for the peace of Germany, refused to com-
promise his conscience, and, in f nil view of the possible ruin of his
earthly interest, he resolved to stand by ' the imperishable Word of
God.'3 The heroic spirit of the Reformers in these trying times found
1 So Brentius, who was at Augsburg at the time, reports (cum Confessio legeretw, obdormivit).
Considering the length of the document, this is not inconsistent with the other statement of
Jonas and Spalatin, that he, like most of the other Princes, w$ quite attentive (satis attentus
erat Caesar). Nor must his drowsiness be construed as a mark of disrespect to the Luther-
ans, for he was likewise soundly asleep on the third of August when the Romish Confuta-
tion was read before the Diet.
8 The best text, Latin and German, of the Confutatio Confessionis Augustance^ with ample
Prolegomena, and the Summary of Cochlseus, see in the 27th volume of the Corpus Reformer
torum (1859), pp. 1-243.
3 See the masterly delineation of this Prince by Ranke, in his Deutsche Geschichte, etc.,
Book V. Ch. 9 (Vol. III. pp. 211 sqq.).
228 THE CEEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
its noblest expression in the words and tune of Luther's immortal bat<
tie-song, based on Psalm xlvi. :
*A tower of strength our God is still,
A mighty shield and weapon ;
He'll help us clear from all the ill
That hath us now o'ertaken.
'And though they take our life —
Goods, honor, children, wife —
Yet is their profit small;
These things shall vanish all —
The City of God remaineth.'
LUTHER'S SHARE IN THE COMPOSITION.1
Being under the papal excommunication and the imperial ban since
the Diet of Worms (1521), Luther could not safely venture to Augsburg,
but he closely watched the proceedings of the Diet from the Castle of
Coburg on the Saxon frontier, praying, translating the prophets, writing
childlike letters to his children, and manly letters to princes, singing
'JSin feste Burg ist unser GottJ giving his advice at every important
step, and encouraging his timid and desponding friend Melanchthon.
He had taken the leading part in the important preparatory labors,
namely, the Fifteen Articles of the Marburg Conference (Oct. 3, 1529),2
the Seventeen Articles ofSchwabach (Oct. 16, 1529),3 which correspond
1 Comp. RUCKKRT: Luther s Verh<niss zum Augsb. Bek., Jena, 1854; CALINICH: Luther
und die Augsb. Conf., Leipz. 1861 (against Riickert and Heppe); HEPPE: JEntstehung und
Fortbildung des Lutherthums, Cassel, 1863, pp. 234 sqq. ; KNAAKE: Luther s Antheil an der
Augsb. Conf., Berl. 1863; RATZ: Was hat Luther durch Melanchthon gewonnen? in the
Zeitschriftf. hist. TheoL, Leipz. 1870, No. III. ; ZOCKLER: 1. c. pp. 8 sqq.
a The German autograph of the Marburg Articles, in the handwriting of the Reformers, was
discovered in the archives of Cassel and published by Prof. H. HBPPE, of Marburg, Cassel,
1847, and also by Bindseil, in the Corpus Reform. Vol. XXVI. pp. 122-127 (in German), with
the textual variations. The Articles are signed by Luther, Jonas, Melanchthon, Osiander,
Agricola, and Brentius, on the part of the Lutherans, and by CEcolampadius, Zwingli, Bucer,
and Hedio on the part of the Reformed. Fourteen of them were fully approved by Zwingli
and his friends, and in the 1 5th, which treats of the Lord's Supper, they agree to disagree as
to the mode of Christ's presence.
3 The Articuli X.VIL Suobacences (which must not be confounded with the Twenty-two
Articles of a previous convent at Schwabach, near Nuremberg, A.D. 1528, see Corp. Ref.
Vol. XXVI. pp. 132 sqq.) were composed by Luther, with the aid of Melanchthon, Jonas, Osi-
ander, Brentius, and Agricola. They are only a Lutheran revision and enlargement of the
Marburg Articles, and seem to have been drawn up in that town, and then presented before
a convent of Lutheran princes and delegates at Schwabach, Oct. 16, and again before a simi-
lar convent at Smalcald, Nov. 29. They were first published in February or March, 1530,
without the knowledge of Luther, under the title: * £>as J3ekenntniss Martini Luthers aufdw
§ 41. THE AUGSBUKG CONFESSION, 1530. 229
to the first or positive part of the Augsburg Confession, and the so-
called Articles of Torgau (March 20, 1530),1 which form the basis of
its second or polemical part. But in all respects the Confession, espe-
cially the second part, is so much enlarged and improved on these pre-
vious labors that it may be called a new work.2
Luther thus produced the doctrinal matter of the Confession, while
Melanchthon's scholarly and methodical mind freely reproduced and
elaborated it into its final shape and form, and his gentle, peaceful,
compromising spirit breathed into it a moderate, conservative tone.
In other words, Luther was the primary, Melanchthon the secondary
author, of the contents, and the sole author of the style and temper of
the Confession.3
Luther himself was satisfied that his friend was better adapted for
the task, and expressed his entire satisfaction with the execution.
When the Confession was sent to him from Augsburg for revision,
he wrote to the Elector, May 15, 1530 : ' I have read the Apology
[Confession] of Master Philip ; it pleases me very well, and I know
of nothing by which I could better it or change it, nor would it be
becoming, for I can not move so softly and gently. May Christ our
Lord help, that it may bring forth much and great fruit, as we hope
and pray. Amen.'4 After the delivery of the Confession, he wrote
angestellten Reichstag zu Augsburg einzulegen, in 17 Artikel verfasst;' then by Luther him-
self, Wittenb. 1530 ; and again by Frick, in his edition of Seckendorf s Ausfuhrl. Historic vom
Lutherthum. See Corp. Ref. Vol. XXVI. pp. 1 29-1 60.
1 The Torgau Articles (Articuli Torgavienses) were formerly often confounded with the
Schwabach Articles, till FORSTEMANN first discovered them in the archives at Weimar, and
brought them to light, in 1883, in the first volume of his ' Urkundenbuch^ r&pu\)lished in the
Corp. Ref. Vol. XXVI. pp. 101-200. They were drawn up by Luther, Melanchthon, Jonas,
and Bugenhagen, at the command of the Elector of Saxony (then residing at Torgau), for
presentation at the approaching Diet of Augsburg, and discuss the controverted articles on
the marriage of priests, the communion of both kinds, the mass, the confession, the episcopal
jurisdiction, ordination, monastic vows, invocation of saints, faith and works, etc.
3 Comp. on the historical details of the sources of the Augs. Conf. the Corpus Reform.,
Vol. XXVI. 0858) pp. 113-200 ; PLITT : Einleitung in die Augustam (1867-68), I. pp. 536
sqq., II. pp.3 sqq. ; and ZO*CKLEK : Die Augsb. Conf. (1870), pp. 8-15.
3 KAHNIS, in his Luther. Dogmatik, II. p. 424, says : ''Luther war der Meister des Inherits,
Melanchthon der Meister der Form. . . . Mel. war der Mann, welcher mit Objektivitat, Fein-
heit, Klarheit, Milde zu schreiben verstand. Und wie nie hat er diese Gabe in diesem Fall<>
verwerthet.' Kollner (Vol. I. p. 178), Eiickert, and Heppe give all the credit of authorship
to Melanchthon. This is true as far as the spirit and the literary composition are concerned ;
but as to the doctrines, Luther had a right to say, ' The Catechism, the Exposition of the
Ten Commandments, and the Augsburg Confession, are mine.9
4 llch /tab M. Philippsen Apologiam uberlesen: die gefdllet mir fast (i. e., sehr) wohl, und
230 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
to Melanchthon, Sept. 15, in an enthusiastic strain: 'You have con-
fessed Christ, you have offered peace, you have obeyed the Emperor,
you have endured injuries, you have been drenched in their revilings,
you have not returned evil for evil. In brief, you have worthily done
God's holy work as becometh saints. Be glad, then, in the Lord, and
exult, ye righteous. Long enough have ye been mourning in the
world, look up and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth
nigh. I will canonize you as faithful members of Christ, and what
greater glory can you desire ? Is it a small thing to have yielded Christ
faithful service, and shown yourself a member worthy of him?'1
The only objection which Luther ever raised to the Augsburg Con-
fession was that it was too gentle, and did not denounce the Pope and
the doctrine of purgatory.2
CONTENTS.
The Augsburg Confession proper (exclusive of Preface and Epi-
logue) consists of two parts — one positive and dogmatic, the other
negative and polemic, or rather apologetic. The first refers chiefly to
doctrines, the second to ceremonies and institutions. The order of sub-
jects is not strictly systematic, though considerably improved upon the
arrangement of the Schwabach and Torgau Articles. In the manu-
weiss nichts daran zu bessern nock andern, wilrde sick auch nicht schicken ; denn ich so sanft und
leise nicht treten kann. Christus unser Herr helfe, dass sie viel und grosse Frucht schaffe,
wie wir hoffen bitten. Amen.' (De Wette's ed. of Luther's Letters, IV. p. 17; Luther's
Works, Erlang. ed. Vol. LIV. p. 145).
1 c Christum confessi estis, pacem obtulistis, Ccesari obedistis, injurias tolerastis, blasphemiis
saturate estis, nee malum pro malo reddidistis : summa, opus sanctum Dei, ut sanctos decet,
digne tractastis. L&tamini etiam aliquando in Domino et exultate, justi : satis diu tristati
(aL lestati) estis in mundo : respicite et levate capita vestra, appropinquat redemtio vestra. Ego
canonizabo vos, utfidelia membra Christi, et quid amplius quceritis gloria f etc. (Brief e, IV.
p. 165. Comp. also his letter of July 15 to Jonas, Spalatin, Melanchthon, Agricola, ib. IV.
p. 96.)
2 In a letter to Justus Jonas, July 21, 1530 : 'Satan adhuc vivit, et bene sensit Apologiam
vestram Leisetreterin [the softly stepping Confession] dissimulasse articulos de purgatorio, de
sanctorum cultu, et maxime de Antichristo Papa9 (Brief e^ IV. p. 110). Melanchthon himself
confessed that he wrote the Confession with more leniency than the malice of the Papists de-
served. And yet immediately after the delivery, which marks the height of his usefulness,
the good man was in an almost desponding state, and was tormented by scruples whether he
had not been conservative enough and taken too much liberty with the venerable Catholic
Church. He was, moreover, hard pressed by Romish divines and politicians, and was ready
to make serious concessions for the sake of unity and peace. Some of his best friends began
unjustly to doubt his loyalty to evangelical truth, and Philip of Hesse, one of the signers of
the Confession, wrote to Zwingli, ' Master Philip goes backward like a crab. '
§ 41. THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION, 1530. 231
script copies and oldest editions the articles are only numbered ; the
titles were subsequently added.
I. The first part presents, in twenty-one articles — beginning with the
Triune God and ending with the worship of saints — a clear, cairn, and
condensed statement of the doctrines held by the evangelical Luther*
ans, (1) in common with the Roman Catholics, (2) in common with the
Augustinian school, (3) in opposition to Rome, and (4) in distinction
from Zwingliaris and Anabaptists.1
(1.) In theology and Ohristology, i. e., the doctrines of God's unity
and trinity (Art. I.), and of Christ's divine-human personality (III.),
the Confession strongly reaffirms the ancient Catholic faith as laid down
in the oecumenical Creeds, and condemns (damnamus) the old and new
forms of Unitarianism and Arianism as heresies.
(2.) In anthropology, i. e., in the articles on the fall and original
sin (II.), the slavery of the natural will and necessity of divine grace
(XYIIL), the cause and nature of sin (XIX.), the Confession is sub-
stantially Augustinian, in opposition to the Pelagian and semi-Pela-
gian heresies. The Donatists are also condemned (VIII.) for denying
the objective virtue of the ministry and the Sacraments, which Augus-
tine defended against them.
(3.) The general Protestant views in opposition to Rome appear in
the articles on justification by faith (IV.)? new obedience (VI.), the
Gospel ministry (V.), the Church (VII., VIII.), repentance (XII.),
ordination (XIV.), ecclesiastical rites (XV.), civil government (XVI.),
good works (XIX.), the worship of saints, and the exclusive mediator-
ship of Christ (XX.). Prominence is given to the doctrine of justifi-
tion by faith, which, though very briefly stated in its proper place
(P. L Art. IV.), is elsewhere incidentally referred to as the essence of
the Gospel.2
(4.) The distinctive Lutheran views — mostly retained from prevail-
ing Catholic tradition, and differing in part from those of other Prot-
1 Eor other divisions, see Zockler, 1. c. p. 93 sqq.
8 Part II. Art. 5 (De discrimine dborum} : * Of this persuasion concerning traditions many
disadvantages have followed in the Church. For first the doctrine of grace is obscured by
it, and the righteousness of faith, which is the principal part of the Gospel (doctrina de
gratia et justitia fidei, qua est pracipua pars Evangelii), and which it behoveth most of aU
to stand forth and to have the pre-eminence in the Church, that the merit of Christ may be
well known, and faith, which believeth that sins are remitted for Christ's sake, may be exalted
far above works.'
VOL. I— 9
232 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
estant churches — are contained in the articles on the Sacraments
X., XIII.), on confession and absolution (XI.), and the millennium
(XVIL). The tenth article plainly asserts the doctrine of a real bodily
presence and distribution of Christ in the eucharist to all communi-
cants (without determining the mode of the presence either by way
of consubstantiation or transubstantiation),1 and disapproves of dis-
senting views (especially the Zwinglian, although it is not named).2
The Anabaptists are expressly condemned (damnamus), like here-
tics, for their views on infant baptism and infant salvation (IX), the
Church (VIII.), civil offices (XVI.), the millennium and final resto-
ration (XVIL). These articles, however, have long ceased to be held
by all Lutherans. Melanchthon himself materially changed the tenth
article in the edition of 1540. The doctrine of the second advent
and the millennium (rejected in Art. XVIL) has found able advo-
cates among sound and orthodox Lutheran divines, especially of the
school of Bengel.
iin sev$& articles, those abuses of Eome
which were deemed most objectionable, and had been actually cor-
1 The wording of the article — quod corpus (in German, wahrer Leib) et sanguis Christi vere
(wahrhaftiglich) adsint et distribuantur vescentibus in Coma Domini — leaves room for both
theories. The Papistical Confutation, while objecting to the articles de utraque specie and de
missa, in the second part of the Augsb. Conf., was satisfied with Art. X. of the first part, pro-
vided only that it be understood as teaching the presence of the whole Christ under the bread
as well as the wine. ('Decimus articulus in verbis nihil offendit, quiafatentur, in eucharistia
post consecrationem legitime factam corpus et sanguis Christi substantialiter et vere adesse, si
modo credant, sub qualibet specie integrum Christum adesse.1} In the Apology of the Confes-
sion (Art. X.), Melanchthon asserts the corporalis prcesentia, and even substitutes for vere
adsint the stronger terms vere et SUBSTANTIALITER adsint. The Lutheran Church, as repre-
sented in Luther's writings and in the Form of Concord (R. 729), rejects transubstantiation,
and also the doctrine of impanation, i. e., a local inclusion of Christ's body and blood in the
elements (localis inclusio in pane), or a permanent and eartra-sacramental conjunction of the
two substances (durabilis aliqua conjunctio extra usum sacramenti) ; but it teaches consub-
stantiation in the sense of a sacramental conjunction of the two substances effected by the
consecration, or a real presence of Christ's very body and blood in, with, and under (in, cum, et
sub) bread and wine. The word consubstantiation, however, is not found in the Lutheran
symbols, and is rejected by Lutheran theologians if used in the sense of impanation. The
philosophical foundation of this dogma is the ubiquity (either absolute or relative) of Christ's
body, which is a part of the Lutheran Christology.
8 Et improbant secus docentes (derhalben wvrd auch die Gegenlehr verworfen). The omis-
sion of Zwingli's name may be due to regard for his friend, the Landgrave Philip of Hesse,
but that he was chiefly intended must be inferred from the antecedent controversies, especially
the ir>th Article of the Marburg Conference, and from the strong opposition of Melanchthon
to Zwingli's theory before 1536 or 1540, when he modified his own. view on the Eucharist.
See below.
§ 41. THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION, 1530. 233
rected in the Lutheran churches, namely, the withdrawal of the com-
munion cup from the laity (I.), the celibacy of the clergy (II.)? the
sacrifice of the mass (III.), obligatory auricular confession (IV.), cere-
monial feasts and fasts (V.), monastic vows (VI.), and the secular
power of the bishops, as far as it interferes with the purity and spir-
ituality of the Church (VII.).
The style of the Latin edition is such as may be expected from the
classic culture and good taste of Melanchthon, while the order and
arrangement might be considerably improved.
The diplomatic Preface to the Emperor is not from his pen, but
from that of the Saxon Chancellor Briick.1 It is clumsy, tortuous,
dragging, extremely obsequious, and has no other merit than to intro-
duce the reader into the historical situation. The brief conclusion
(Epilogue) is from the same source, and is followed by the signatures
of seven Princes and two magistrates.2 Several manuscript copies
omit both Preface and Epilogue, as not belonging properly to the
Confession.
CHARACTER AND VALUE.
The Augsburg Confession breathes throughout an earnest and de-
vout evangelical Christian spirit, and is expressed in clear, mild, dig-
nified language. It professes to be both Scriptural and churchly, and
in harmony even with the Roman Church as known from the genuine
tradition of antiquity.3 It is remarkably moderate and conciliatory
in tone, and free from all harsh or abusive terms. It is not aggressive,
1 Forstemann, Urkundenluch, etc., I. p. 460, and Bindseil, Corp. Ref., Vol. XXVI. p. 205.
Chancellor Briick (Pontanus) wrote the Preface in German, and Jonas translated it into
Latin. A copy in the Seminary Library at Wittenberg has the remark, probably from the
hand of Jonas, after the inscription, 'Prc&fatio ad Cces. Car. V. :' 'Reddita e Germanico Pon-
tani tune per Justum Jonam. '
3 There was considerable controversy as to the genuineness of the signatures of two of seven
Princes, viz., John Frederick of Saxony (the son of the Elector John) and Duke Francis of
Liineburg. See Kollner, 1. c. pp. 201 sqq.
3 At the conclusion of the first part, the Confession says : * Ho&c fere summa est doctrines
apud was, in qua cerni potest, nihil inesse, quod DISCEEFET A SCRIPTURES, TEL AB ECCLESIA
CATHOLICA, VEL AB ECCLESIA. EOMANA, QUATENUS EX SCRIPTORIBUS NOTA EST, 'and in the
Epilogus : lApud nos nihil esse receptum CONTRA SCRIPTURAM, AUT ECCLESIAM CATHOLICAM,
quia manifestum est, nos diligentissime cavisse, ne qua NOVA ET IMFIA DOGMATA in ecclesias
nostras serperent.' Hence the Confession frequently appeals not only to the Scriptures, but
also to the Fathers (Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, etc.) and the canon law (Decretum
Gratiani, veteres canones, and the exemplum ecclesici).
234 THE CEEEDS OF CHEISTENDOM.
but defensive throughout. Hence its original modest name Apology.1
It pleads only for toleration and peace. It condemns the ancient
heresies (Arianism, Manicheism, Pelagianisrn, Donatism), which were
punishable according to the laws of the German Empire. It leaves
the door open for a possible reconciliation with Borne.2 Popery itself,
and many of its worst abuses, are not even touched, at least not ex-
pressly. The modest and peaceful author wrote under a painful sense
of responsibility, with a strong desire for the restoration of the unity
of faith, and hence he avoided all that might give unnecessary offense
to the ruling party.3
But the same motive made him unjust toward his fellow-Protestants,
who differed from him far less than both differed from the Eomanists.
The Lutheran divines, after refusing at Marburg all connection with
the Zwinglians, yet, being unable to convince the Catholic majority,
felt that by protesting against what they regarded as ultra-Protestant
radicalism they would better succeed in securing toleration for them-
selves. One of their leaders, however, Philip of Hesse, openly sym-
pathized with Zwingli, and had to be specially urged by Luther to
subscribe the Confession, which he did with a dissent from the tenth
article. The majority of the citizens of Augsburg likewise adhered to
Zwingli at that time.4
The Augsburg Confession is the fundamental and generally received
symbol of the Lutheran Church, which also bears the name of ' the
Church of the Augsburg Confession.' It is inseparable from the the-
1 Melanchthon wrote to Luther: 'Mittitur tibi Apologia nostra, quanquam verius Confes-
$io est. ' Afterwards it was also frequently called the * Saxon Confession' and the 'Evange-
Usche Augapfel ' (Prov. vii. 2).
2 Ranke, 1. c. III. p. 201 : '/w diesem Sinne der Anndherung, dem Gefiihle de$ Nochnichtvoll-
kommengetrenntseins, dem Wunsche, eine wie im tieferen Grunde derDinge waltende, so in eini-
gen Einzelnheiten des Bekenntnisses sichtbare Verwandtschaft geltend zu machen, war die Con-
fession gedacht und abgefasst.' Zockler, 1. c p. 318 : ''Die Augustana ist in ihren Antitheses
sowohl nach der r&nischen wie nach der reformirten Seite hin, das mildeste, friedliebendste,
gegnerischer seits am leichtesten zu ertragende aller evangelisch-lutherischen Symbole.'
3 Comp. the Preface, and the repeated assurances of Melanchthon, e. g.7 in a letter of May
21, 1530, to Joachim Camerarius (Corp. JRef. II. p. 57) : 'Ego Apologiam paravi scriptam
summa verecundia, neque his de rebus did mitius posse arbitror.' And in a letter to the same,
dated June 19 (ib. p. 1 19) : ' Non dubitabam quin Apologia nostra videreturfutura lenior, guam
mereatur improbitas adversariorum.'
* See the remarks of L. Eanke, III. p. 220 sq. Kahnis also (Lath. Dogm. II. p. 436) ad-
mits that 'the desire for an understanding with the Papists made Melanchthon a very decided
opponent of the Swiss, and even of the Strasburgers.'
§ 41. THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION, 1530. 235
ology and history of that denomination ; it best exhibits the prevailing
genius of the German Keformation, and will ever be cherished as one
of the noblest monuments of faith from the pentecostal period of Prot-
estantism.1
But its influence extends far beyond the Lutheran Church. It struck
the key-note to other evangelical confessions, and strengthened the
cause of the Reformation every where. It is, to a certain extent,
also the Confession of the Reformed and the so-called Union Church-
es, in Germany, namely, with the explanations and modifications of
the author himself in the edition of 1540, which extended, as it were,
the hand of fellowship to them (see below). In this qualified sense,
either expressed or understood, the Augsburg Confession was fre-
quently signed by Reformed divines and Princes, even by John Cal-
vin, while ministering to the Church at Strasburg, and as delegate to
the Conference of Ratisbon, 1541 ;2 by Farel and Beza at the Confer-
ence in Worms, 1557; by the Calvinists at Bremen, 1562 ; by Frederick
III., (the Reformed) Elector of the Palatinate, at the convent of Princes
in Naumburg, 1561, and again at the Diet of Augsburg, 1566 ; by John
Sigismund, of Brandenburg, in 1614 It is true that till the close of
1 For a hearty estimate of the value of the Confession from the Lutheran stand-point, see
Dr. Krauth's introduction to his translation, pp. xlvii. sqq., and his Conservative Reformation,
*pp. 255 sqq. : * With the Augsburg Confession,' he says in both places, 'begins the clearly
recognized life of the Evangelical Protestant Church, the purified Church of the West, on
which her enemies fixed the name Lutheran. With this Confession her most self-sacrificing
struggles and greatest achievements are connected. It is hallowed by the prayers of Luther,
among the most ardent that ever burst from the human heart ; it is made sacred by the tears
of Melanchthon, among the tenderest which ever fell from the eyes of man. It is embalmed
in the living, dying, and undying devotion of the long line of the heroes of our faith, who,
through the world which was not worthy of them, passed to their eternal rest. The greatest
masters in the realm of intellect have defended it with their labors ; the greatest Princes have
protected it from the sword by the sword ; and the blood of its martyrs, speaking better
^hings than vengeance, pleads forever, with the blood of Him whose all-availing love, whose
sole and all-atoning sacrifice, is the beginning, middle, and end of its witness.*
8 Calvin wrote to Rev. Mart. Schalling, at Ratisbon, 1557: 'Nee vero Augustanam Confes-
sionem repudio, cui pridem volens ac libens subscripsi, sicut earn auctor ipse interpretatus est'
(Epp. p. 437). Similarly in his Ultima Admonitio ad Joach. Westphalum^ Genev. 1557. It
is not quite certain whether it was the Altered or the Unaltered Confession which Calvin
subscribed at Ratisbon, but probably it was the former, as he says that it contained nothing
contrary to his doctrine, and as he appealed without fear to Melanchthon himself as the
best interpreter. The Altered edition had appeared a year before, and had been actually
used at the previous Conference at Worms, though Eck protested against it. See Kollner,
p. 241 ; Zockler, pp. 40, 41 ; Ebrai'd, Dogma vom heil Abendmahl, II. p. 450 ; Stahelin, Joh.
Cahin, I. p. 236 ; G. v. Polentz, Geschichte des franz&sischen Calvinismus, Vol. I. p. 577 ?
Vol. II. p. 62,
CREEDS OP CHRISTENDOM.
the Thirty-Years' War (1648) the Reformed were tolerated in the
German Empire only as allies of the Augsburg Confession,1 but even
afterwards they continued their friendly relation to it, and maintain it
to the present day without feeling any more bound by it.2
The last, and the most memorable occasion since 1530, on which
this noble Confession was publicly acknowledged, but with a sav-
ing clause as to the interpretation of the tenth article relating to the
doctrine of the Lord's Supper, was at the German Church Diet of
Berlin, 1853, composed of over 1400 clergymen, of four denomina-
tions— Lutheran, German Reformed, Evangelical Unionists, and Mo-
ravians.3
1 'Augustance Confessioni addicti^ t Augsburgische Confessionsverwandte.'
3 In the electoral, afterwards royal, house of Brandenburg, the Augsburg Confession and
the Heidelberg Catechism have always lived in peace together. The Great Elector, Frederick
William, as patron of the German "Reformed, professed in their name, when the Westphaliau
Treaty was concluded, their cordial adherence to the Confession of 1530 (Projitentur dicti
Reforrnati Augustanam Confessionetn augustissimo Imp. Carolo V. anno 1530 exhibitam corde
et ore). There are, however, German Reformed congregations of a more strictly Calvinistic
type (e. g., in Elberfeld), which would rather adopt the Canons of the Synod of Dort than the
Augsburg Confession.
3 The unanimous declaration of the Berlin Church Diet reads thus: 'The members of the
German Evangelical Church Diet hereby put on record that they hold and profess with heart
and mouth the Confession delivered, A.D. 1530, at the Diet of Augsburg, by the evangelical
Princes and States to Emperor Charles V., and hereby publicly testify their agreement with it,
as the oldest, simplest common document of publicly recognized evangelical doctrine in Germany
(dass sie sich zu der im Jahr 1530 aufdem Reichstage zu Augsburg von den evangelischen Fur*
sten und Standen Kaiser Karl V. uberreichten Confession mit Herz und Mund halten und le-
kennen, und die Uebereinstimmung mit lAr, als der altesten, einfachsten gemeinsamen Urkundt
SJfentlich anerJcannter evangelischer Lehre in Deutschland, hiedurch Sffentlich bezeugeri).' So
far orthodox Lutherans might agree. But now follows a qualification to save the consciences
of the Keformed and Unionists : ' With this we connect the declaration that they and each
one of them adhere to the particular confessions of their respective churches, and the Union-
ists to the consensus of the same; and that they do not mean to interfere with the different
positions which the Lutherans, Keformed, and Unionists sustain to the Tenth Article of the
Augsburg Confession, nor with the peculiar relations of those Reformed congregations which
never held the Augustana as a symbol (Hiemit verbinden sie die Erklarung, dass sie jeder in-
sonderheit an den besonderen Bekenntniss-Schriften ihrer Kirchen* und die Unirten an dem
Consensus derselben feslhalten, und dass der verschiedenen Stellung der Lutheraner, Reformir-
ten und Unirten zu Artikel X. dieser Confession, und den eigenthumlichen Verhaltnissen der-
jeniffen Reformirten Gemeinden, welche die Augustana niemals als Symbol gehabt haben, nic.ht
JSintrag geschehen soliy See Evang. Kirchenztg. of Berlin, for 1853, pp. 775 sqq. While
fully recognizing the importance of this testimony in opposition to rationalism and popery, we
should remember, first, that it has no official or ecclesiastical character (the German Kirchen-
tag, like the Evangelical Alliance, being merely a voluntary association without legislative or-
disciplinary power) ; and, secondly, that it is a compromise, which was expressly repudiated
by the anti-Union Lutherans (the professors at Erlangen, Leipzig, and Rostock), as 4 a frivo-
lous depreciation of the most precious symbol of German Evangelical Christendom.'
§ tt. THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION, 1530. 237
On this fact and the whole history of the Augsburg Confession
some German writers of the evangelical Unionist school have based
the hope that the Augsburg Confession may one day become the united
Confession or oecumenical Creed of all the evangelical churches of
Germany.1 This scheme stands and falls with the dream of a united
and national Protestant Church of the German Empire. Aside from
other difficulties, the Keformed and the majority of Unionists, to-
gether with a considerable body of Lutherans, can never conscien-
tiously subscribe to the tenth article as it stands in the proper his-
torical Confession of 1530; while orthodox Lutherans, on the other
hand, will repudiate the Altered edition of 1540. The Invariata is,
after all, a purely Lutheran, that is, a denominational symbol ; and
the Variata is a friendly approach of Lutheranism towards the Ke-
formed communion, which had no share in its original production
and subsequent modification, although it responded to it Neither
the one nor the other edition can be the expression of a union, or
confederation of two distinct denominations, of which each has its
own genius, history, and symbols of faith. Such an expression must
proceed from the theological and religious life of both, and meet the
wants of the present age. Great as the Augsburg Confession is, the
Church will produce something greater still whenever the Spirit of
God moves it to a new act of faith in opposition to the unbelief and
misbelief of modern times. Every age must do its own work in its
own way.
THE TEXT. THE INVABIATA AND THE VAJttATA.2
The Augsburg Confession was first completed in Latin,3 but the
German text was read before the Diet. Both copies were delivered
in manuscript to the Emperor, but both disappeared: the German
copy, first deposited in the imperial archives at Mayence, was prob-
ably sent with other official documents to the Council of Trent (1545),
1 So Dr. W. Hoffmann, late Court Chaplain of the Emperor of Germany (Deutschland
JEinst und Jetzt im Lichte des Reiches Gottes, Berlin, 1868, pp. 476 sqq. and 512 sqq.) ; Con-
sistorialrath Leop. Schultze (Die Augsb. Confession als Gesammtbekenntniss unserer evang.
Landeskirche, Bremen, 1869); to some extent also Prof. Zockler (1. c. p. 330), who proposes
that the Augsburg Confession be made, not indeed the Union Symbol, but the Confederation
Symbol of German Evangelical Christendom.
* See the details in Weber, KoUner, and Bindsefl
3 Corp. Reform. Vol. XXV*. p. 205.
238 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
and then to Kome ; the Latin copy to Brussels or Spain, and no trace
of either has been found. For two hundred years the opinion pre-
vailed that the 'Book of Concord' contained the original text, until
Pfaff and Weber, by a thorough investigation on the spot, dispelled
this error.1
The twenty-two manuscript copies, still extant in public or private
libraries, are inaccurate, defective, and represent the various stages of
revision through which the Confession passed before the 25th of Au-
gust under the ever-improving hands of the author. There was no
time, it seems, to make authentic copies of the final revision.
The printed editions (six in German, one in Latin), which were
hastily issued during the Diet by irresponsible, anonymous publish-
ers, are full of errors and omissions, and were condemned by Me-
lanchthon.
Consequently, we must depend entirely upon the author's own print-
ed editions ; but even these differ very much among themselves, and
the German text differs from the English.2 Fortunately the changes
are mostly verbal and immaterial, and where they alter the sense (as
in the edition of 1540), they can be traced to their proper origin.
By the subscription of the Lutheran Princes and the delivery at the
Diet, the Confession had become public property, and should have
remained unaltered. But at that time neither editors nor publishers
were careful and scrupulous in handling official documents. Luther
himself changed the Articles of Smalcald after they had been publicly
acknowledged. Melanchthon regarded the Confession, not as a fixed
1 The Latin text of the Book of Concord is substantially from Melanchthon's quarto
edition of 153 J, and was supposed to correspond entirely with an imaginary Latin manuscript
in Mayence. The German text purports to be a true copy of the original manuscript in
Mayence, but is derived from a secondary source, viz., the printed text in the Corpus Bran-
denburgicum, 1572, which, again, was based upon a carelessly written copy of the Confession
before its final revision. Chancellor Pfaif, of Tubingen, first discovered at Mayence that the
original German copy was lost long ago, and he published, in 1730, what was regarded as a
true copy of the original; but he was fiercely assailed by Adami, Feuerlin, and others, and his
discovery traced to a Jesuitical lie. In 1 78 1 Georg Gottlieb Weber, chief pastor at Weimar,
was allowed to make a thorough search in the archives of Mayence, and found to his surprise
that the copy shown him as the original was the printed German octavo edition of 1540,
bearing on the title-page the words * Wittenberg, M.D.XL.' He published the results of his
patient investigation in his Kritische Geschichte der Augsb. Confession aus archival. Nach-
richten, Frankf. a. M. 1783-4, 2 vols.
8 The various readings in Bindseil's edition, in the Corpus Reformatornm, cover as much
space as the text itself.
§ 41. THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION, 1530. 239
and binding creed, but as a basis for negotiation with, the Papists,
and as representing a movement still in progress toward clearer light1
He therefore kept improving it, openly and honestly, in every new
issue, as he would his own work, and in the edition of 1540 he even
embodied some doctrinal modifications in the desire of promoting the
cause of truth and peace.
The editio princeps was issued by the author in both languages,
together with the Latin Apology and a German translation of it by
Jonas, at Wittenberg in 1531, in spite of the imperial prohibition, yet
with the consent (though not by order) of the Elector of Saxony.2
The text was taken, not from Melanchthon's own manuscript copy
(which had been delivered to the Emperor), but, as he says, ex exem-
plari bonce fidei (probably the private copy of the Landgrave Philip
of Hesse), and contained already verbal changes and improvements.3
The emendations in subsequent editions before 1540, though quite
numerous, do not materially affect the sense, and seern to have been
approved; at all events, they were acquiesced in by the Lutherans
themselves.4
1 Comp. the concluding words: *£& quid in hac confessione desiderabitur, parati sumus
latiorem informationem, Deo volente, juxta Scripturas exhibere.'
8 Under the title : * CONFESSIO FIDEI | exhibita inoictiss. Imp. Carolo V. \ Ccesaris Aug.
in Comiciis \ August^ \ Anno \ M.D.XXX. \ Addita est Apologia Confessionis. \ SBeibe,
S)eubfd) | imb Sothrifd). | Ps. 119. | Et loquebar de testimoniis tuis in conspectu Regum, et
non confundebar. \ WiTEBERazE.' (In 4). At the end: 'Impressum per Georgia,™ Rhau. \
M.D.XXXL1 This is the title of the copy in the royal library at Dresden, which Melanch-
thon gave to Luther, with the words, in his own handwriting (below the title): 1D. Doctori
Martina. Et rogo ut legat et emendet.' See Corp. Ref. Vol. XXVI. p. 235. Bindseil (pp.
246 sqq.) shows that the Confession was already printed (but not issued) in November, 1530,
and that the whole volume, with the Apology, was finished in April or May, 1531. Some copies
of the printed Confession seem to have reached Augsburg before the close of the Diet.
3 He wrote to Joachim Camerarius, June 26 (a day after the delivery at Augsburg): lEgo
mutabam et refingebam pleraque quotidie, plura etiam mutaturus, si nostri crvnQpdd/LioveQ
[counselors] permisissent.1 Corp. Ref. II. p. 140. Kaiser has shown that Melanchthon
made a number of changes in the first edition — Beitrag zu einer Kritischen Literar- G esc kick te
der Melanchthonischen Original-Ausgabe der lat. und deutsch. Augsb. Oonf. und Apologie,
Nurnberg, 1830. Comp. Kollner, 1. c. I. p. 340, and Corp. Ref. Vol. XXVI. pp. 251 sqq.
* Luther, who took similar liberty with the Smalcald Articles, expresses no judgment, in
his writings, on these variations ; but he must have known of them, and tolerated them as
unessential, even those of 1540, which appeared six years before his death. The sayings attrib-
uted to him on this subject by both parties are apocryphal, at all events unreliable, viz. , the
word of censure : 'Philippe^ Philippe, ihr thut nicht recht, dass ihr Augustanam Confessionem
so oft iindert ; denn es ist nicht ewer, sondern der Kirchen Buch ;' and the word of indirect
approval (1546): ''Lieber Philipp^ ich muss es bekennen, der Sache vom Abendmahl ist viel
zu viel ffethan' (the matter of the Lord's Supper has been much overdone). The latter utter-
240 THE CEEEDS OF CHEISTENDOM.
But the edition of 1540, which appeared in connection with an im-
proved edition of the Apology,1 differs so widely from the first that
it was subsequently called the Altered Augsburg Confession ( Variata\
in distinction from the Unaltered (Invariata) of 1530 or 1531.2 It
attracted little attention till after the death of Melanchthon (1560),
when it created as much trouble as the insertion of the fttogue clause
in the Nicene Creed. The Altered Confession, besides a large num-
ber of valuable additions and real improvements in style and the
order of subjects,3 embodies the changes in Melanchthon's theology,4
which may be dated from the new edition of his Loci communes,
1535, and his personal contact with Bucer and Calvin. He gave up,
on the one hand, his views on absolute predestination, and gradually
adopted the synergistic theory (which brought him nearer to the Ro-
man Catholic system); while on the other hand (departing further
from Eomanism and approaching nearer to the Reformed Church), he
modified the Lutheran theory of the real presence, at least so far as to
allow the Reformed doctrine the same right in the evangelical church-
es. He never liked the Zwinglian view of a symbolical presence, nor
did he openly adopt the Calvinistic view of a spiritual real presence,
but he inclined to it, and regarded the difference between this and the
Lutheran view as no bar to Christian fellowship and church com-
munion.
Hence in the edition of 1540 he laid greater stress on the necessity
ance, however, which Luther is reported to have made shortly before his death, has received
a high degree of probability by the discovery of the testimony of Pastor Hardenberg, of Bre-
men (1547-1550), who publicly and solemnly declared to have heard it, together with another
living witness (Canon Herbert von Langen, at Bremen), from Melanchthorfs own lips. See
Erlanger Reform. Kirchmzeitung for 1853, No. 40. The first Lutheran divine who publicly
censured and condemned the Variata was Flacius, at the colloquy of Weimar, 1560. He was
followed by Morlin, Stossel, Wigand, Chytraeus, Heshusius, and others.
1 Under the title (as given in Corp. Reform. 1. c. p. 243) : * CONFESSIO [ Fidei exhibita \
inmctiss. imp. Carolo \ V. Ccesari Aug. in Comiciis \ Augusta. \ Anno. M.D.XXX.Addita
et Apologia Confessionis diligenter recognita. \ Psalmo CXIX. \ Vitebergce, 1540.' The
words diligenter recognita (in the German edition, mit vleis emendirt) openly indicate the
changes.
• The best text of the Variata, with the variations of later editions, is given in Corp. Reform.
Vol. XXVI. pp. 349 sqq. ; the history in KSIXNER, I. pp. 235-267, and the books there
quoted; also in ZOCBXER, 1. c. pp. 35 sqq. In Vol. II. of this Symb. Library the principal
changes are noted in foot-notes under the text of the Confession.
3 In Art. 4, 5, 6, 18, 20, 21, of Part First, and the order of the first five articles in Part
Second.
* In Art. 4, 5, 10,18,20.
§ 41. THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION, 1530. 241
of repentance and good works, and softened down the strong expres-
sions against the freedom of will. The other and more important
change which gave most offense to orthodox Lutherans, is in the
tenth article, concerning the Lord's Supper, where the clause on the
real presence, and the disapproval of dissenting views are omitted, and
the word exkibeantur is substituted for distribuantw. In other words,
the article is so changed that Calvin could give it his hearty consent,
and even Zwingli — wi|h the exception, perhaps, of the word truly —
might have admitted it.1 The difference will best appear from the fol-
lowing comparison :
EDITION 1530. LATIN TEXT.
'JDe Ccena Domini docent, quod corpus et
sanguis Christi VERB ADSINT, et DISTRIBU-
ANTUR vescentibus in Ccena Domini; ET IM-
PROBANT SECUS DOOENTES.13
* Concerning the Lord's Supper, they teach
that the body and blood of Christ are truly
present^ and are distributed (communicated)
to those that eat in the Lord's Supper. And
EDITION 1540.
lDe C&na Domini docent^ quod cuar PANE
ET VINO vere EXHIBEANTUR corpus et san-
guis Christi vescentibus in Ccena Domini.'
' Concerning the Lord's Supper, they teach
that with bread and wine are truly exhibited
the body and blood of Christ to those that
eat in the Lord's Supper.'
they disapprove of those that teach otherwise. '
The difference between the two editions was first observed, not by
Protestants, but by the Roman controversialist. Dr. Eck, at a religious
conference in Worms early in the year 1541. Melanchthon and the
Saxon theologians made there the altered edition the basis of negotia-
tions, but Eck complained of changes, especially in Art. X., from the
original copy of 1530, which he had procured from the archives of
Mayence. Nevertheless, the Variata was again used, either alone or
alongside with the Invariata, at several subsequent conferences, prob-
ably at Eatisbon, 1541, certainly at Eatisbon in 1546, and at Worms,
1557. It was expressly approved by the Lutheran Princes at a con-
vention in Naumburg, 1561, as an innocent and, in some respects, im-
1 Zockler, 1. c. p. 38, thinks that the Calvinistic view would require credentibus instead of
vescentibus. This would be true, if the original dlstribuantur had been retained, and not ex-
changed for the more indefinite exhibeantur. fife admits, however, that the tenth article is
4 calvinisirend' and 'bucerianisirend' in the sense of the Wittenberg Concordia of 1536,
whereby Bucer, with Melanchthon's express co-operation, and the subsequent consent of Cal-
vin, endeavored to unite the Lutherans and the Swiss.
8 The German text of 1530 (1531) differs from the Latin, and is even stronger: ' Vom
Abendmahl des Herrn wird also gelehret, dass WAHRER Leib (the true body) und Blut Christi
wahrhaftiglich (corresponding to the vere in the Latin text) UNTER (DER) GBSTAI/T (under
the form) des Brots und Weins im Abendmahl gegenwdrtig set, und da ausgetheilt und ge-
nommen wird (distributed and received). Derhalben wird auch die Gegenlehr verworfenS
243 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
proved modification and authentic interpretation of the Tnvariata. It
was introduced into many Lutheran churches and schools, and printed
(with the title and preface of the edition of 1530) in the first collec-
tion of Lutheran symbols, called Corpus Doctrines PMlippicum, or
Misnicum (1559).1
But after 15 60, strict Lutheran divines, such as Flacius and Heshu-
sius, attacked the Variata, as heretical and treacherous, and over-
whelmed it with coarse abuse. A violent theological war was waged
against Melanchthonianism and Orypto-Calvinism, and ended in the
triumph of genuine Lutheranism and the transition of some Lutheran
countries to the Eeformed Church. The 'Book of Concord' (1580)
gave the text of the Invariata in the happy illusion of presenting it,
especially the German, in its original form. The Melanchthonians
and the Reformed still adhered to the Variata. The Westphalian
Treaty, in 1648, formally embraced the Eeformed, together with the
Roman Catholics and Lutherans, in the peace of the German Empire ;
and henceforth subscription to the Augsburg Confession of 1530 or
1540 ceased to be a necessary condition of toleration.2
The Confession, as delivered before the Diet of Augsburg in 1530,
or, in the absence of the original text, the edition of 1531, carefully
prepared by Melanchthon himself, is the proper historical Confession
of Augsburg, and will always remain so. At the same time, the altered
edition of 1540, though not strictly speaking a symbolical book of
binding authority any where,3 is yet far more than a private document,
and represents an important element in the public history of the Lu-
theran Church in the sixteenth century, and the present theological
convictions of a very large party in that denomination.
1 See Weber, 1. c. U. pp. 314-336 ; Kollner, 1. c. pp. 248 sqq.
8 Instrum. Pads Osnabr. Art. VII. § 1 : ' Unanimi quogue . . . consensu placuit, ut quicquid
publica hcec transactio, in eaque decisio gravaminum ceteris Catholicis, et AUGUSTANJE CONE.
ADDICTIS statibus et subditis tribuunt, it etiam Us, gui inter illos REFORM ATI vocantur, compe-
tere debeatS Quoted by Jacobson in art. Westf. Friede, in Herzog's Real-EncycL XVIII.
p. 24. Nevertheless, some interpreted this decree as including only such of the Reformed as
subscribed the Invariata. All other Christians are expressly excluded by the Treaty ; and
yet the Popes have always, though vainly, protested in the strongest terms (damnamus, repro-
bamus, cassamus, annullamus, vacuamus) even against this partial concession to the principle
of religious freedom; taking the ground that Papists alone have a legal right to exist on Ger-
man soil. See Gieseler, Lehrbuc.h der K. G. III. I. p. 431 sq.
3 An attempt was made in the Bavarian Palatinate, in 1853, through the influence of Dr.
Ebrard, to raise the Variata to the dignity of a symbolical book, but it proved abortive.
§ 42. THE APOLOGY OF THE AUGSBURG CONCESSION, 1530-1531, 243
§ 42. THE APOLOGY OF THE ATOSBUBG CONFESSION. AD. 1530-1531.
The Literature in §5 40 and 41. The history and literature of the Apology are usually combined with
that of the Confession. So in J. G. WALOH, FETTEBLIN-KIZDEBKK, KowansB, etc.
The best text of the Apology, and of the Eoman Catholic Confutation of the Confession, in Latin
and German, with all the variations, is given in the Corpus Jfc/ormatorwwi,Vol. XXVII., ed.Bindseil
(Brunsvigse, 1859), pp. 646, foL There are few separate editions of the Apology. Feuerlin knew only
two, one under the singular title : Evangelisch&n Augap/els (name of the Augsb. Conf.) Britten-Buteer,
Leipz.1629.
The ' Apology of the Augsburg Confession' was prepared by Melanch-
thon in vindication of the Confession against the Roman Catholic
1 Confutation,' which the Emperor and the Diet had ordered and ac-
cepted, August 3, 1530, as a satisfactory answer, although, in the eyes
of scholars, it did the cause of popery more harm than good.
The Confutation follows the order of the Augsburg Confession,
approves eighteen articles of the first part, either in full or with sun-
dry restrictions and qualifications, but rejects entirely the articles on
the Church (VII.), on faith and good works (XX.), and on the worship
of saints (XXI.), and the whole second part ; nevertheless, it acknowl-
edges at the close the existence of various abuses, especially among
the clergy, and promises a reformation of discipline. The publication
of the document was prohibited, and it did not appear till many years
afterwards ; but its main contents were known from manuscript copies,
and through those who heard it read.1
The Lutherans urged Melanchthon to prepare at once a Protestant
refutation of the Romish refutation, and offered the first draft of it to
the Diet, Sept. 22, through Chancellor Briick, but it was refused. On
the following day Melanchthon left Augsburg in company with the
Elector of Saxony, and re-wrote the Apology on the journey,2 and
completed it at Wittenberg in April, 1531.
The Apology is a triumphant vindication of the Confession. It
far excels the Confutation both in theological and literary merit, and
1 The Latin text of the Confutatio was first published hy Fabricius Leodius in Harmonia
Confess., 1 573 ; the German, by C. G. Miiller, 1808, from a copy of the original in the archives
of Mayence, which Weber had previously obtained. Both in the Corp. Reform. 1. c. Comp.
also above, p. 226 ; Weber's Krit. Gesch. der A. (7. II. pp. 439 sqq. ; and Hugo Lammer (who
afterwards joined the Romish Church): Die vor-Tridentinisch-Katholische Theologie, des
Reformations-Zeitalters, Berlin, 1858, pp. 33-46.
2 His zeal led him to violate even the law of rest on Sunday when at Altenburg, in Spala-
tin's house. Luther took the pen from him, and told him to serve God on that day by rest"
ing from literary labor. So Salig reports in his Hist, of the Augsb. Conf. I. p. 375.
2M THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
in Christian tone and spirit. It is written with solid learning, clear*
ness, and moderation, though not without errors in exegesis and pa-
tristic quotations. It is seven times as large as the Confession itself.
It is the most learned of the Lutheran symbols. It greatly strengthen-
ed the confidence of scholars in the cause of Protestantism. Its chief
and permanent value consists in its being the oldest and most authen-
tic interpretation of the Augsburg Confession by the author himself.
The Apology, though not signed by the Lutheran Princes at Augs-
burg, was recognized first in 1532, at a convent in Schweinfurt, as a
public confession; it was signed by Lutheran divines at Smalcald,
1537 ; it was used at the religious conference at Worms, 1540, and
embodied in the various symbolical collections, and at last in the Book
of Concord.
The text of the Apology has, like that of the Confession, gone
through various transformations. The original draft made at Augs-
burg has no authority.1 The first Latin edition was much enlarged
and improved, and appeared in April, 1531, at Wittenberg, together
with a very free German translation by Justus Jonas, assisted by Me-
lanchthon.2 The second Latin edition of the same year was again
much changed, and is called the Variata? The German text was
also transformed, especially in the edition of 1533. The Book of
Concord took both texts from the first edition.
1 Manuscript copies of this 'Apologia prior J which was based on an imperfect knowledge
of the Romish Confutatio, still exist. The Latin text of it was published forty-seven years
afterwards by Chytrseus (from Spalatin's copy), 1578, better by Forstemann, in his Neues
Urkundenbuch (1842), pp. 357-380 (from a copy written partly by Spalatin and partly by
Melanchthon). The best edition is by Bindseil, in the Corp. Reform. Vol. XXVII. pp. 275
sqq. in Latin, and in German, pp. 322 sqq.
a During the preparation of the editio princeps he wrote to Brentius (February, 1531) :
* Ego retexo Apologiam et edetur longe omtior et melius munita, ' and to Oamerarius (March 7) :
6 Apologia mea nondum dbsoluta tod, crescit enim opfis inter scribendwn.' Quoted by Kollner,
I. p. 420. Six sheets were reprinted, and a copy of the first print is preserved in the library
of Nuremberg. See Corp. Reform. Vol. XXVIL pp. 391 sqq.
3 See the titles of the various editions in Corp. Reform. Vol. XXVI. pp. 235-242, and the
best text of the 'Apologia altera* of 1531, with the changes of later editions till 1542 (viz.,
of the ed.II. 1531, id. III. 1540, ed. IV. 1542), in Corp. Reform. Vol. XXVIL pp. 419-646.
§ 43. LUTHER'S CATECHISMS, 1529. 245
§ 43. LUTHEB'S CATECHISMS. A.D. 1529.
Literature.
L EDITIONS. See § 40. We only mention the critical editions.
C.MONOK:EBKRG: Die ersteAusgabev.Luthers Klein. Katecfiismus. Hamburg, 1851. (Reprint of the Low-
Sennan translation of the first edition, 1529.)
K. F. TH. SCHNEIDER: Dr. Martin Luthers Kleiner Katechismus. Nach den Originalausgaben kritisch
bearbeitet. JSin £eitrag zur Geschichte tier Katechetik, Berlin, 1853. (Reprint of the standard edition
of 1581 ; with a critical introduction, pp. Ixx.)
THEODOS. HARNAOK: Der KUine Katechismus Dr. Martin Luthers in seiner Urgestalt. Kritisch unter-
sucht und herausgegeben. Stuttgart, 1856, 4to. (Reprint of two editions of 1529, and one of 1539 ; with
Ixiv. pp. of introduction, and a table of the principal variations of the text till 1542.)
The popular editions of the Smaller Catechism, especially in German, with or without comments and
supplements, are innumerable.
II. WOBKS :
A. FABRIOII: Axiomata Scriptures Catechismo Lutheri accommodata, etc. Isleb. 1583.
C.DIRTKRIOI: fnstit. catech. Ulm, 1613; often reprinted.
PH. J. SPENER : Tabula catech. Frf. 1683, 1687, 1713.
GREG.LANGBMAOK: Hist. catecheticce oder Gesammelte Nachrfchten zu einer Catech. Historic. Steals.
1729-1740, 3 vols. Part II., 1733, treats of Lutheri und anderer evang. Lehrer Catechistnis.
J. C. KOOUER : Mnleitung in die catech. Theol. Jena, 1752. And JSiblioth. theol. symb. catech. P. 1. 1751 ;
P. II, 1769.
J. 0. W. AUGUSTI : Versuch einer hist, kritischen Einleitung in die beiden Hawpt-Katechismen der Evang.
Kirche. Elberf.1824.
G. VEKSBNMBYBR : Liter, bibliograph, Nachrichten von einigen evang. katechet. Schriften und Katechi#men
vor und nach Luthers Kat., etc. Ulm, 1830.
G. MOHNIKE : Las sechste Haivptstnck im Katechismus. Stralsund, 1330.
C. A. GBRH. von ZBZSOHWITZ : System der christlich kirchlichen Katechetik. Leipz. 1863-69, 2 vols. Vol.
II. P. I. treats of Luther's Catechism very fully.
Comp. the Literature in FABRIOIUS, FBUBRLIN, WALOH, BAUMGARTRN, KOLI.NEE, Symbolikt I. p. 473.
CATECHETICAL INSTRUCTION.
Religious instruction preparatory to admission to church member-
ship is as old as Christianity itself, but it assumed very different
shapes in different ages and countries. In the first three or four cent-
uries (as also now on missionary ground) it always preceded baptism>,
and was mainly addressed to adult Jews and Gentiles. In length and
method it freely adapted itself to various conditions and degrees of
culture. The three thousand Jewish converts on the day of Pente-
cost, having already a knowledge of the Old Testament, were baptized
simply on their profession of faith in Christ, after hearing the sermon
of St. Peter. Men like Cornelius, the Eunuch, Apollos, Justin Mar-
tyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, needed but little
theoretical preparation, and Cyprian and Ambrose were elected bish-
ops even while yet catechumens. At Alexandria and elsewhere there
were special catechetical schools of candidates for baptism. The basis
of instruction was the traditional rnle of faith or Apostles' Creed, but
there were no catechisms in our sense of the term ; and even the creed
which the converts professed at baptism was not committed to writing,
24:6 THE CEEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
but orally communicated as a holy secret. Public worship was accord-
ingly divided into a missa catechumenorum for half -Christians in-proc-
ess of preparation for baptism, and a missa fidelium for baptized com-
municants or the Church proper.
With the union of Church and State since Constantine, and the
general introduction of infant baptism, catechetical instruction began
to be imparted to baptized Christians, and served as a preparation for
confirmation or the first communion. It consisted chiefly of the com-
mittal and explanation, (1) of the Ten Commandments, (2) of the
Creed (the Apostles' Creed in the Latin, the Nicene Creed in the
Greek Church), sometimes also of the Athanasian Creed and the Te
Deum ; (3) of the Lord's Prayer (Paternoster). To these were added
sometimes special chapters on various sins and crimes, on the Sacra-
ments, and prayers. Councils and faithful bishops enjoined upon par-
ents, sponsors, and priests the duty of giving religious instruction, and
catechetical manuals were prepared as early as the eighth and ninth
centuries, by Kero, monk of St. Gall (about 720) ; Notker, of St. Gall
(d. 912) ; Otfried, monk of Weissenbourg (d. after 870), and others.1
But upon the whole this duty was sadly neglected in the Middle Ages,
and the people were allowed to grow up in ignorance and superstition.
The anti-papal sects, as the Albigenses, Waldenses, and the Bohemian
Brethren, paid special attention to catechetical instruction.2
The Reformers soon felt the necessity of substituting evangelical
Catechisms for the traditional Catholic Catechisms, that the rising
generation might grow up in the knowledge of the Scriptures and
the true faith. Of all the Protestant Catechisms, those of Luther fol-
low most closely the traditional method, but they are baptized with a
new spirit.
1 Otfried's Catechism was newly edited by J. G. Eccard : llncerti Monachi Weissenbwgen-
sis Catechesis Theotisca Secvlo /3C. conscripta.' Hanov. 1713. It contains : 1. The Lord's
Prayer, with an explanation ; 2. The Deadly Sins ; 3. The Apostles' Creed ; 4. The Athanasian
Creed ; 5. The Gloria.
a Comp. J. C. Kocher: Catechet. GescMchte der Waldenser, Bshmischen Briider, etc. Amst.
1768. And C. A. G. von Zezschwitz : Die Catechismen der Waldenser und Bdhndschen Brud&r
als Documente ihres gegenseitigen Lehraustausches. Erlangen, 1863.
§ 43. LUTHEB'S CATECHISMS, 1529. 247
After several preparatory attempts,1 Luther wrote two Catechisms,
in 1529, both in the German language — first the larger, and then the
smaller. The former is a continuous exposition rather than a Cate-
chism, and is not divided into questions and answers; moreover, it
grew so much under his hands that it became altogether unsuitable for
the instruction of the young, which he had in view from the beginning.
Hence he prepared soon afterwards a smaller one, or Enchiridion, as
he called it.2 It is the ripe flower and fruit of the larger work, and
almost superseded it, or confined its use to pastors and teachers and
a more advanced class of pupils.3
He was moved to this work by the lamentable state of religious
ignorance and immorality among the German people, which he found
out during his visitations of the churches in Saxony, 1527-29.4
1 They began in 1518 with a popular evangelical exposition of the Lord's Prayer, and the
Ten Commandments. See Schneider, 1. c. pp. xvii. sqq., and Zezschwitz, 1. c. II. I. pp. 316
sqq. Nor stood he alone in these labors. Urbanus Regius (author of three Catechisms),
Lonicer (Strasburg, 1523), Melanchthon (1524), Brentius (1527 or 1528), Lachmann (Cate-
chesis, 1528), Riirer, Althamer, Moiban, Corvin, Rhau, Willich, Chytrseus (1555), and other
Lutherans of the Reformation period, wrote books for the religious instruction of the young.
2 First in the second edition, whose title (as given by Riederer, but now wanting in the
copy rediscovered by Harnack, 1. c. p. xxii.) is this: 'Enchiridion. Der kleine Catechismus
fur die gemeine Pfarher und Prediger, gemehret und gebessert durch Mart. Luther. Wit-
tenberg,MD XXIX.1 The title of the third edition, 1531, is: ''Enchiridion. \ Der kleine
Catechismus \ fur die gemeine Pfarher und Prediger. \ Mart. Lu. MDXXXL* See Schnei-
der, 1. c. p. 1. This is the standard edition, from which the editions of 1539 and 1542 differ
very slightly.
3 See, on the relation of the two, Kollner, 1. c. p. 490. He says, p. 520 : *The Large Cate-
chism has entirely gone out of use. ' Comp. also Zezschwitz, 1. c. p. 324. The older view of
the priority of the Small Catechism is wrong.
* He says, in his characteristic style (Preface to the Small Catechism) : lDiesen Katechis-
mum oder christliche Lehre in solche kleine, schlechte, einfaltige Form zu stellen, hat mich ge-
zwungen und gedrungen die klagliche elende Noth, so ich neulich erfahren habe, da ich auch ein
Visitator war. Hilf< lieber Gott, wie manchen Jammer habe ich gesehen, dass der gemeine Mann
doch so gar nichts weiss von der christlichen Lehre, sonderlich auf den Dorfern ! Und leider
viel Pfarrherren ganz ungeschickt und untuchtig sind zu lehren ; und sotten doch alle Christen
heissen, getauft sein und der heUigen Sacramente geniessen ; kdnnen weder Vaterunser, noch den
Glauben, oder Zehn Gebote; leben dahin, wie das Hebe Vieh und unvernunftige Saue; und nun
das Evangelium kommen ist, dennochfein gelernt haben, aUerFreiheit meisterlich zumissbrauch-
en. 0 ihr Bischofe, was wollt ihr doch Christo immer mehr antworten, dass ihr das Volk so schand-
lich habt lassen hingehen, und euer Amt nicht einen Augenblickje bewiesen * Dass euch alles
Ungluck fliehe! Verbietet einerlei Gestalt und treibet auf eure Menchengesetze, fraget aber
derweil nichts danach, ob sie das Vaterunser, Glauben, Zehn Gebote oder einiges Gotteswort
konnen. Ach und wehe iiber euren Hals ewiglich ! Darum bitfe ich urn Gottes willen euch
VOL. I.— E
248 THE CBEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
"With his conservative instinct, he retained the three parts on the
Decalogue (after the Latin division), the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer.
To these he added, after the example of the Bohemian Brethren, an
instruction on the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper.1
Luther's Catechism proper, therefore, has five parts: 1. DECALOGUS;
2. SYMBOLUM APOSTOLIOUM; 3. ORATIO DOMINICA; 4. DE BAPTISMO;
5. DE SACRAMENTO ALTARIS. So the Large Catechism, as printed in
the Book of Concord (without any additions2), and the Small Cate-
chism in the first two editions (with devotional additions).
THE ADDITIONS IN THE ENCHIRIDION.
In the later editions of the Small Catechism (since 1564) there is a
sixth part on Confession and Absolution, or the Power of the Keys?
which is inserted either as Part V., between Baptism and the Lord's
Supper, or added as Part VL, or as an Appendix. The precise author-
ship of the enlarged form or forms (for they vary) of this Part, with
the questions ' What is the Power of the Keys,' etc., is uncertain,4 but
the substance of it, viz., the questions on private or auricular confession
of sin to the minister and absolution by the minister, as given in the
c Book of Concord,' date from Luther himself, and appear first sub-
stantially in the third edition of 1531, as introductory to the fifth
part on the Lord's Supper.5 He made much account of private con-
atte meine Helen Herren und Bruder, so Pfarr Tierren oderPrediger sind, wollet evck euresAmtes
von Herzen annehmen, euch erbarmen fiber ever Volk, das euch befohlen ist, und uns he/fen den
Katechismus in die Leute, sonderlich in dasjunge Volk bringen; und welche e$ nicht lesser ver-
ntfgen, diese Tafeln und Formen vor sick nehmen, und dem Volkt von Wort zu Wort fiirbilden'
1 The Bohemian Brethren, or Hussites, had Catechisms long before Luther, divided into
five parts : 1. The Decalogue; 2. The Creed; 3. The Lord's Prayer; 4. The Sacraments;
5. The House Table. They sent a Latin copy to Luther, 1523. See Kollner, 1. c. pp. 485,
469,
3 Luther says, in the Prolegomena to the Large Catechism, 'Also hatte man uberall^ws
SitJcKB DER GATSTZEN CHRISTLICHEN LBHRK, die man immerdar treiben kann.'
3 ' Vom Ami der Schlussel. De potestate clavium.' It is usually called ' Das sechste Haupt-
stilckj although it should properly be an appendix.
4 It is variously traced to Luther, Brentius (who has in his Catechism a sixth part * On the
Keys'), Bugenhagen, Knipstrov, but with greater probability to the popular Catechetical Ser-
mons prepared for public use in Nuremburg and Brandenburg, 1583 (probably by Brentius),
and translated into Latin by Justus Jonas, 1539 (and re-edited by Gerlach, Berlin, 1839).
See Francke : Libri symbolici, etc. P. II. Proleg. p. xxiv. ; Miiller : Die Symbolischen 23ucher,
etc. p. xcvii. ; Kollner, 1. c. pp. 502 sqq. ; Zezschwitz, 1. c. pp. 327 sqq.
* i-'ee the third edition, as republished by Schneider, 1. c. pp. Hi. and 45 sqq. Those ques-
tions appear under the title ' Wie man die Einfeltigen soil leren beichtenS An admonition to
§ 43. LUTHER'S CATECHISMS, 1529. 249
fession and absolution, while the Calvinists abolished the same as a
mischievous popish invention. 'True absolution,3 says Luther, l or the
power of the keys, instituted in the Gospel by Christ, affords comfort
and suppoi't against sin and an evil conscience. Confession or abso-
lution shall by no means be abolished in the Church, but be retained,
especially on account of weak and timid consciences, and also on ac-
count of untutored youth, in order that they may be examined and
instructed in the Christian doctrine. But the enumeration of sins
should be free to every one, to enumerate or not to enumerate such as
he wishes.' J
Besides these doctrinal sections, the Smaller Catechism, as edited
by Luther in 1531 (partly, also, in the first edition of 1529), has
three appendices of a devotional or liturgical character, viz. : 1. A
series of short family prayers ('wie ein Haitsvater sein Gesinde soil
lehren Morgens und Abends sick segnen'); 2. A table of duties ('Haus-
tafeV) for the members of a Christian household, consisting of Scrip-
ture passages (1 Tim. iii. 2 sqq. ; Rom. xiii, 1 sqq.; Col. iii. 19 sqq. ;
Eph. vi. 1 sqq., etc.); 3. A marriage manual (c Traubuchlin') ] and
4. A baptismal manual (£ Tauf buckling
The first two appendices, which are devotional, were retained in the
'Book of Concord ;' but the third and fourth, which are liturgical and
confession ('Vermahnung zu der Beicht') was added also to later editions of the Larger Cate-
chism since 1531, but omitted in the 'Book of Concord,' against the remonstrance of Chemnitz.
1 Art. Smalc. III. p. 8. The Church of England holds a similar position in regard to the
confessional, and hence the recent revival of it by the "Ritualists, though under the strong pro-
test of th"e evangelical party. The 'Book of Common Prayer* of the Church of England
contains, besides two different forms of public confession and absolution (one for Morning and
Evening Prayer, another for the Communion Service), a form of private confession and abso-
lution in the Order for the Visitation of the Sick. The first two are retained, the third is
omitted in the Prayer Book of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States. The
third form, in the Visitation Office, retains the traditional form of the Latin Church — 'Absolvo
te in Nomine Patris,' etc. — * I absolve thee in the Name,' etc. Blunt, in his Annotated Book
of Common Prayer, Part II. p. 283, comments largely on this formula, and quotes also a pas-
sage from the first exhortation in the Communion Office, which reads as follows : ' There-
fore, if there be any one who . . . requireth further comfort and counsel, let him come to
me, or to some other discreet and learned minister of God's Word, and open his grief j that
by the ministry of God's Holy Word he may receive the benefit of absolution together with
ghostly counsel and advice, to the guiding of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and
doubtfulness.' And after some other quotations, he says: 'Numberless practical writers
speak of private confession as a recognized habit in the Church of England since the Refor-
mation as well as before. Nearly all such writers, however, protest against its compulsory
injunction, and it does not seem to be proved that frequent and habitual confession has evei
been very common in the Church of England since the Reformation.'
250 THE CBEBDS OP CHBISTENDOM.
ceremonial, were omitted because of the great diversity in different
churches as to exorcism in baptism, and the rite of marriage.
TRANSLATIONS AND IOTKODITCTION.
The Smaller Catechism was translated from the German original
into the Latin (by Sauermann) and many other languages ; even into
the Greek, Hebrew, and Syriac. It is asserted by Lutheran writers
that no book, except the Bible, has had a wider circulation. Thirty-
seven years after its appearance Matthesius spoke of a circulation of
over a hundred thousand copies.
It was soon introduced into public schools, churches, and families.
It became by common consent a symbolical book, and a sort of ' Lay
Bible' for the German people. It is still very extensively used in
Lutheran churches, though mostly with supplements or in connection
with fuller Catechisms. In Southern Germany the Catechism of Bren-
tius obtained a wide currency.
CHARACTER, VALUE, AND DEFECTS.
Luther's Small Catechism is truly a great little book, with as many
thoughts as words, and every word telling and sticking to the heart as
well as the memory. It bears the stamp of the religions genius of
Luther, who was both its father and its pupil.1 It exhibits his almost
apostolic gift of expressing the deepest things in the plainest language
for the common people. It is strong food for a man, and yet as sim-
ple as a child. It marks an epoch in the history of religious instruc-
tion : it purged it from popish superstitions, and brought it back to
Scriptural purity and simplicity. As it left far behind all former
catechetical manuals, it has, in its own order of excellence and use-
fulness, never been surpassed. To the age of the Eeformation it was
an incalculable blessing. Luther himself wrote no better book, except-
ing, of course, his translation of the Bible, and it alone would have
immortalized him as one of the great benefactors of the human race.
1 'I am also a doctor and a preacher,' he says in the Preface to his Larger Catechism,
* endowed with no less learning and experience than those who presume so much on their
abilities ... yet I am like a child who is taught the Catechism, and I read and recite word
by word, in the morning and when I have leisure, the Ten Commandments, the Articles of
the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the Psalms, etc. . , . and must remain, and do cheerfully remain,
a child and pupil of the Catechisnr '
§ 43. LUTHER'S CATECHISMS, 1529. 251
Few books have elicited such enthusiastic praise, and have even to
this day such grateful admirers.1
But with all its excellences it has some serious defects. It gives
the text of the Ten Commandments in an abridged form (the Larger
Catechism likewise), and follows the wrong division of the Komish
Church, which omits the second commandment altogether, and cuts
the tenth commandment into two, to make up the number.2 It al-
1 I quote some Lutheran testimonies which show the impressions of early childhood, and
seem extravagant to members of other denominations. Matthesius : * The world can never suf-
ficiently thank and repay Luther for his little Catechism.' Justus Jonas : ' It may he bought for
sixpence, but six thousand worlds would not pay for it. ' Andr. Fabricius : ' A better book, next
to the Bible, the sun never saw ; it is the juice and the blood, the aim and the substance of the
Bible. ' Seckendorf : ' I have received more consolation and a firmer foundation for my salvation
from Luther's little Catechism than from the huge volumes of all the Latin and Greek fathers
together.' Lone : ' It is, of all Confessions, that which is most suitable and best adapted to the
people. It is a fact, which no one denies, that no other Catechism in the world can be made
a prayer of but this. But it is less known that it may be called a real marvel in respect of
the extraordinary fullness and great abundance of knowledge expressed in it in so few words.'
Leopold Kanke : l The Catechism published by Luther in 1 529, of which he himself says
that, old a doctor as he was, he used it himself as a prayer, is as childlike as it is profound,
as comprehensible as it is unfathomable, simple, and sublime. Happy he whose soul was fed
by it, who clings to it. He possesses at all times an imperishable consolation : under a thin
shell, a kernel of truth sufficient for the wisest of the wise.7 (' Der Katechisjnus, den Luther
imJa.hr 1529, herausgab^ von dem er sagt, er bete ihn selbst, so ein alter Doctor er auch sei, ist
tbenso kindlich wie tiefsinnig, sofasslich wie unergrundlich, einfach und erhaben. G-luckselig
wer seine Seele damit nahrte, wer daran festhah ! Er besitzt einen unvergaaglichen Trost in
jedem Momente: nur h inter einer leichten Hulle den Kern der Wahrheit, der dem Weisesten der
Weisen genug thutS Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation, Vol. II. 3d edition,
Berlin, 1852, p. 357.) To add an American testimony, I quote from Dr. Ch. P. Krauth:
4 So truly did the Shorter Catechism embody the simple Christian faith, as to become, by the
spontaneous acclamation of millions, a Confession. It was a private writing, and yet, beyond
all the Confessions, the direct pulsation of the Church's whole heart is felt in it. It was
written in the rapture of the purest catholicity, and nothing from Luther's pen presents him
more perfectly, simply as a Christian ; not as the prince of theologians, but as a lowly believer
among believers' ( The Conservative Reformation, Philadelphia, 1872, p. 285).
8 The Lutheran and the Roman Catholic Catechisms, following the lead of Augustine, re-
gard the second commandment only as an explanation of the first ; the Reformed and the
Greek Catechisms, following the division of the Jews (Josephus and Philo) and the early
Christians (e. g. Origen), treat it as a separate commandment, which prohibits image worship
and enjoins the true worship of God, while the first prohibits idolatry and enjoins monothe-
ism. Hence the different modes of counting from the second to the ninth commandment.
The division of the tenth commandment follows as a necessity from the omission of the sec-
ond, but is decidedly refuted by the intrinsic unity of the tenth commandment, and 'by a com-
parison of Exod. xx. 17 with Deut. v. 21 ; for in the latter passage (as also in the Septuagint
version of Exod. xx. 17) the order is transposed, and the neighbor's wife put before the neigh-
bor's house, so that what is the ninth commandment in Exodus, according to tlie Roman
Catholic and Lutheran view, would be the tenth according to Deuteronomy. St. Paul, more-
over, in enumerating the commandments of the second table, Rom. xiii. 9 (comp. also vii. 7), al-
ludes to the tenth with the words, * Thou shalt not covet,' without intimating any such division.
252 THE CEEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
lows only three questions and answers to the exposition of the Creed.
It gives undue importance to the Sacraments by making them co-or*
dinate parts with the three great divisions, and elevates even private
confession and absolution, as a sort of third sacrament, to equal dig-
nity. It omits many important articles, and contains no express in-
struction on the Bible, as the inspired record of divine revelation and
the infallible rule of faith and practice. Hence it is found neces-
sary, where it is used, to supplement it by a number of preliminary
and additional questions and answers.
THE TEXT OF THE ENCHIRIDION.
The critical restoration of the best text of Luther's Small Catechism
has only recently been accomplished by Monckeberg, Schneider, and
Harnack. The text of the * Book of Concord' is unreliable.
The editio prinoeps of 1529 had entirely disappeared until Moncke-
berg, 1851, published a Low-German translation from a copy in the
Hamburg city library ; and five years later (1856) Professor Harnack
found an Erfurt reprint of the original (without date), and a Marburg
reprint dated 1529.
The second recension, of 1529, which contains several improvements
and addenda, was described by Riederer, in 1765, from a copy then in
the university library at Altdorf. This copy was supposed to have
been transferred to Erlangen, but was discovered by Harnack in the
German Museum at Nnremburg, and republished by him, 1856, to-
gether with a reprint of the editio jprinceps^ and a Wittenberg edition
of 1539, a valuable critical introduction, and a table of the principal
variations of the text till 1542.
The third recension, of 1531, was brought to light by Dr. Schneider,
and accurately republished (but without the woodcuts and the Trau-
luchlin and Taufbuchlin\1.853, with a learned introduction and critical
Comp. also Mark x. 19. The Decalogue consists of two tables, of five commandments each.
The first contains the duties to God (prcecepta pietatis), the second the duties to men (prce*
cepta probitatis) ; the first is strictly religious, the second moral. The fifth commandment
belongs to the first table, since it enjoins reverence to parents as representing God's authority
on earth^ This view is now taken not only by Reformed, but also by many of the ablest
Lutheran divines, e. g., Oehler, Theologie de$ Alten Testaments (Tubingen, 1873), I. pp. 287
sqq. ; H. Schultz, AlttestamentUche Theologie (Frankf. a. M. 1869), I. p, 429. On the other
hand, Kurtz, Kahnis, and Zezschwitz defend the Lutheran division. The main thing, of
course, is not the dividing, but the keeping of the commandments.
§ 44. THE ARTICLES OF SMALCALD, 1537. 253
apparatus.1 It gives the text of the five parts substantially as it has re-
mained since, also the section on confession (c Wie man die Einfaltigen
soil lehren beickten '), the morning and evening prayers, the Senedicite
and Gratias, the Haustafel, the Traubuohlin and the Taitfbuchlin.
In 1535 (and 1536) Luther prepared a new edition, to conform the
Scripture texts to his translation of the Bible, which was completed in
1534.
The edition of 1542 (^aufs neu ubersehen und zugerichtf] adds the
promise to the fourth (fifth) commandment, and enlarges the 'House
Table.'
§ 44. THE ARTICLES OF SMALOALD. A.D. 1537.
Literature.
CAEPZOV: Isagoge in Libros Symbolicoa, etc., 1675, pp. T6T sqq.
J. C. BEBTBAM : Oeschichte des symbol. Anhanga der Schmalk. ArtikeL Altdorf; 1770.
M. MBUBER : Der Tag zu Schmalkalden und die Schmalk. ArtikeL Leipz. 1837.
K6LLNEB: Symbolik (1837), L pp. 439-472.
G. H. KLIPPEL, in Herzog's Real-EneykLVol. XIII. (1860), pp. 600 sqq.
CH. P. KBATITH: The Conservative Reformation and its Theology, Phila. 18T2, pp. 280-283.
F. SANDER : Gesehichtliche Einleitung zu den SchmaUcaldiachen Artikeln. In the Jahrbucher fur Deutsche
Theologie, Gotha, 18T5, pp. 478-489.
The older literature, mostly doctrinal and polemical, is given by FABBIOIUS, WALOH, BAUAIGAETEN,
HABB (Libri Symb. Proleg. cxl.), and KO'LLNBB.
ORIGOT.
Pope Paul IIL3 yielding at last to the request of the German Em-
peror and the pressure of public opinion, convoked a general Council,
to be opened May 23, 1537, at Mantua,2 and extended, through his
legate, Peter Paul Vergerius (who subsequently became a Protestant),
an invitation also to the Lutherans.3 Though by no means sanguine
as to the result, Luther, by order of the Elector of Saxony (Dec. lls
1 See his description, 1. c. pp. L-liv. It is reprinted in the second volume of this work.
2 It did not convene, however, till 1545, in Trent, and then it turned out an exclusive Ro-
man Catholic Council.
3 Vergerius had a fruitless interview with Luther in the electoral castle at Wittenberg,
which was characteristic of both parties. The papal nuncio acted the proud prelate and
shrewd Italian diplomatist; the Reformer, the plain, free-spoken German. Luther took the
matter in good humor, sent for the barber, and put on his best dress to impress the nuncio
with his youth and capacity for even greater mischief to the Pope than he had done already.
He scorned his tempting offers, and told him frankly that he cared very little about his mas-
ter and his Council at Mantua or elsewhere, but promised to attend it, and there to defend his
heretical opinions against the whole world. Vergerius, in his report, speaks contemptuously
of Luther's poor Latin, rude manners, obstinacy, and impudence ; but some years afterwards
he renounced Romanism, and became the Reformer of the Grisons in Eastern Switzerland.
He died October 4, 1565, at Tubingen, where he spent his last years, without office, but in ex-
tensive literary activity and correspondence. See the monograph of Sixt: Petrus Paulus V"er«
gerius+ Braunschweig, 1855, pp. 35-4o.
254 r£HE CREEDS Otf CHRISTENDOM.
1536), prepared a Creed as a basis of negotiations at the Council, sub-
mitted it to Amsdorf, Agricola, Spalatin, and Melanchthon for ap
proval, and sent it to the Elector, Jan. 3, 1537.
Melanchthon, at the request of the convent assembled at Smalcald,
prepared an Appendix on the power and primacy of the Pope, about
which the Augsburg Confession and Apology are silent
SIGNATURE. MELANCHTHON's POSITION.
The Articles, including the Appendix, were laid before the convent
of Lutheran Princes and theologians held in the town of Smalcald
(Schmalkalden), in Thuringia, which lent its name to the political
league of those Princes for mutual protection, and also to this new
Creed.1 They were signed by the theologians (but not by the Princes)
without being publicly discussed.2
Melanchthon signed the Articles with the following remarkable
qualification : ' I, Philip Melanchthon, approve the foregoing Articles
as pious and Christian. But in regard to the Pope, I hold that, if
he would admit the Gospel, we might also permit him, for the sake of
peace and the common concord of Christendom, to exercise, by human
right, his present jurisdiction over the bishops, who are now or maj-
hereafter be under his authority.'3
This remarkable concession strongly contrasts with the uncompro-
mising anti-popery spirit of the Articles, and exposed Melanchthon
to much suspicion and abuse. It is self -contradictory and impractica-
ble, since the Pope and his hierarchy will never allow the free preach-
ing of the Gospel in the Protestant sense. But the author's motive
1 ' Schmalkaldische Artikel, Articuli Smalcaldici, ' so called since 1553. The original title
is: 'ARTIKEL CHRISTLICHKR LEHRE, so da hatten sollen aufs Concilium zu Mantua, oder wo
es sonst warden ware^ iiberantwortet werden von unsers Theih wegen, und was wir annehmen
oder nachgeben konnten oder nicht, durch D. Martin Luthern geschrieben, Anno 1537.'
3 The Princes on that occasion required their theologians to sign also the Augsburg Confes-
sion and Apology, but they resolved to have nothing to do with the Pope's Council. The
Appendix has thirty-two signatures, the Articles have forty-two, obtained partly at Smalcald
and partly on the journey. The principal signers are Luther, Melanchthon, Jonas, Spalatin,
Bugenhagen, Amsdorf, Bucer, and Brentius. See Kollner, pp. 445 sqq., and Plitt, De aucto-
ritate Artirulorum Smalettldino^wn (Erlang. 1862), with the strictures of Heppo, Entstehung
und Fortbildung des Lutherthums (Cassel, 1 863), pp. 252 sqq.
3 * De pontifice autem statuo, si evangelium admitteret (so er das Evangetium wollte zutasstri),
ei propter pacem et communem tranguillitatem Christianorum, qui iam sub ipso sunt et in paste-
rum sub ipso erunt, superioritatem in episcopos, guam aliogui habet,jure humano etiaw a nobi$
permitti.' Sander (p. 488) thinks that Melanchthon did not mean this authority to apply ta
Protestants. But this is itu-uiiMdieiit with the words ' etiam a nobis.'
§ 44. THE ABtlCLES OF SMALCALfc, 1537. 255
was a noble desire for a more independent and dignitied position of
the Church. He feared — and not without good reason — a worse than
papal tyranny from rapacious Protestant Princes, who now exercised
the power of supreme bishops and little popes in their territories. He
sincerely regretted the loss, not of the episcopal domination, but of the
episcopal administration, as a check upon secular despotism.1
CONTENTS.
The Articles of Smalcald consist of three parts.
The first reaffirms, very briefly in four articles, the doctrines of the
Apostles' and Athanasian Creeds, about which there was no dispute
with the Papists. It corresponds to Articles 1. and III. of the Augs-
burg Confession.
The second and principal part, concerning ' the office and work of
Christ, or our redemption,' is polemical against the mass, purgatory,
the invocation of saints, monasticism, and popery, which interfere and
set aside the true doctrine of redemption. Justification by faith alone
is emphasized as the chief article of faith, c upon which depends all
that we teach and do against the Pope, the devil, and all the world.
We must, therefore, be entirely certain of this, and not doubt it. other-
wise all will be lost, and the Pope, and the devil, and our opponents
will prevail and obtain the victory.' The mass is denounced as cthe
greatest and most horrible abomination,32 purgatory as a 'satanic de-
lusion,' the Pope as cthe true Antichrist' predicted by Paul (2 Thess.
ii. 4), because 'he will not permit Christians to be saved without his
power.'
The third part treats, in fifteen articles, of sin, of the law, of repent-
ance, of the sacraments, and other doctrines and ordinances, concerning
1 tUtinam, utinam' — he wrote to his Mend, Joach. Camerarius, Aug. 31, 1530— 'possim
non qvidem doininationem confirmare, sed administrationem restituere episcoporum. Video enim,
qualem simus habituri JEccksiam, dissoluta TroXirsiq. ecclesia$tina. Video posted multo intole-
rabilioremjfuturam tyrannidem, quam antea unquamfuit ' ( Corp. /?e/bm. Vol. II. p. 334. Comp.
his letter of Sept. 4, 1530, to the same, p. 341). Kollner defends Melanchthon's course.
8 Luther calls it also *the dragon's tail (Drackenschwanz), which has produced a multi-
plicity of abominations and idolatiies* (multiplices abominationes et idololatrias. In German:
>jiel Ungeziefers und Geschmeiss mancherlei Abffb'tterei^ P. II. Art. 2. He says that the
mass will be the chief thing in the proposed Council, and will never be yielded by the Pa-
pists. Cardinal Campeius had told him at Augsburg he would rather be torn to pieces than
allow the mass to be discontinued. So would he (Luther) rather be reduced to ashes than
allow a performer of the mass to be equal to our Lord and Saviour.
256 THE CREEDS 0£ CHRISTENDOM.
which Protestants may dispute either among themselves or with < learned
and sensible men ' (i. e.. Catholics in the Council, but not with the Pope,
who is said to have no conscience, and to care only about 'gold, honor,
and power'). In the article on the Lord's Supper, transubstantiation is
expressly excluded, but otherwise the Lutheran doctrine is asserted
it/ t
even in stronger terms than in the Augsburg Confession (viz.? tha'
* the true body and blood of Christ are administered and received, not
only by pious, but also by impious Christians.' l Luther concludes with
spicy remarks against the juggling tricks of the Pope.
The Appendix of Melanchthon is a theological masterpiece for his
age, written in a calm, moderate, and scholarly tone ; and refutes, from
the Bible and from the history of the early Church, these three assump-
tions of the Pope, as * false, impious, tyrannical, and pernicious in the
extreme,' viz. : 1. That the Pope, as the Yicar of Christ, has by divine
right supreme authority over the bishops and pastors of the whole
Christian world ; 2. That he has by divine right both swords, that is,
the power to enthrone and dethrone kings, and to regulate civil affairs ;
3. That Christians are bound to believe this at the risk of eternal sal-
vation. He also shows from Scripture and from Jerome that the power
and jurisdiction of bishops, as far as it differs from that of other min-
isters, is of human origin, and has been grossly abused in connection
with the papal tyranny.
CHARACTER AND AUTHORITY.
It is clear from this outline that the Articles of Smalcald mark a
considerable advance in the final separation of the Lutheran body from
the Church of Rome. Luther left Smalcald in bad health (he suffered
much of the stone), with the prayer that God may fill his associates
with hatred of the Pope, and wrote as his epitaph,
'Pestis eram vivus, moriens tua mors ero, Papa.1
The Articles themselves differ from the Augsburg Confession as
much as Luther differs from Melanchthon. They are more fresh,
vigorous, and original, but less cautious, wise, circumspect, and sym-
1 Heppe 0* c- P' 253 sq.) says that Luther in his first draft used simpler language, viz.,
that 'the body and hlood of Christ are offered with the bread and with the wine;' but that
Amsdorf insisted on a stronger, anti-Melanchthonian statement.
§ 44. THE ARTICLES OF SMALCALD, 1537. 257
metrical. They are not defensive, but aggressive ; not an overture
of peace, but a declaration of war. They scorn all compromises, and
made a reconciliation impossible. They were, therefore, poorly calcu-
lated to be a basis of negotiation at a general Council, and were, in
fact, never used for that purpose. The Convent at Smalcald resolved
not to send any delegates to the Council. But the Smalcald Articles
define the position of Lutheranism towards the Papacy, and give the
strongest expression to the doctrine of justification by faith. They
accordingly took their place, together with the Appendix, among the
symbolical books of the Lutheran Church, and were received into vari-
ous Corpora Doctrince, and at last into the 'Book of Concord.51
Luther prepared the Smalcald Articles at Wittenberg in the German
language, and edited them, in 1538, with a preface and considerable
changes and additions, but without the signatures, and without the
Appendix of Melanchthon. In 1543 and 1545 he issued new editions
with slight changes. The first draft, as copied by Spalatin, and signed
at Smalcald, was published from the archives of Weimar in 1553, to-
gether with Luther's additions and Melanchthon's Appendix, and em-
bodied in the 'Book of Concord.'3
The Latin text, as it appeared in the first edition of the 'Book of
Concord,' was a poor translation, but was much improved in the edition
of 1584.
Melanchthon wrote the Appendix at Smalcald in Latin, but a Q-er-
man translation by Dietrich was signed there, and passed, as the sup-
posed original, into the works of Luther and the first edition of the
'Book of Concord' (1580). The corrected Latin edition of 1584 gave
the Latin original, but as the work of all the theologians convened at
Smalcald.4 This error prevailed nearly two hundred years, until the
careful researches of Bertram dispelled it.
1 Comp. Plitt and Heppe, above quoted (p. 254).
3 See the minor particulars in Bertram, 1. c., and Kollner, pp. 454 sqq.
3 The original MS. of Luther, from which Spalatin made his copy before Luther added his
changes, was discovered in the Palatinate Library at Heidelberg in 1817, and edited by Mar-
heineke, with notes, Berlin, 1817.
* Under the title 'De Potentate et Primatu Papa. Tractatus per Theologos Smakaldia
congregates corucriptu*.'
258 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
§ 45. THE FORM OF CONCORD. A.D. 1577.
Literature.
I. The text of the «Form of Concord1 is found in all the editions of the 'Boot of Concord' (Ciwcorewm
buch), see p. 220.
HEINE. LTOW. JCTL. HBPPB (Professor in Marburg, an indefatigable investigator of the early history of
German Protestantism in the interest of Melanchthonianism) : Der Text dor Bergtechen Concordienformel,
verglichen mit dem Text der Schwdbischen Concordie, der Schwdbisch-Sdchsischen Concordie und des Tor-
gaiter Bitches. Marburg, 1857, 2d ed. 1860.
II. JACOB ANDREW : Seeks chrfetlicher Predig von den Spaltungen, so sich zwischen den Theologen Augs-
purgtecher Confession wn Anno 1548 Us auf diess 1573 Jar, nach und nach erhoben, etc. Tubingen, 1573.
Republished by Professor Heppe in Appendix I. to the third volume of his History of German Prot-
estantism (see below). In the same volume Heppe published also 'the Swabian and Saxon Form of Con-
cord,' the *Maulbronn Formula,' and other important documents.
Apologia, oder Verantwortung des christl. Concordienbitchs, etc. (usually called the Erfurt Book, an offi-
cial Apology, prepared at Erfurt and Quedlinburg by KIBOHNEB, SBLNEOKEB, CHEMNITZ, and other Lu-
theran divines). Heidelb. 1583 ; Dresden, 1584, etc.
RUB. HOSPINIAN (Reformed, d. at Zurich 1626) : CONOOBPIA DISOOBB ; h. e. de origine etprogresau Formulae
Bergensia, etc., ex actis tum publicis, turn privatis . . . Tig. 1607 ; Genev. 1678, folio. (The chief work
against the 'Form of Concord.1)
LBONH. H UTTER (Lutheran, d. at Wittenberg 1616) : CONOOBDIA OONOOBS ; de origine etprogressu Formulae
Concordice ecclesiarum Conf. Aug. . . . in quo eius OBTHODOXIA . . . dertnonstratur : et Rud. ffospiniani
Tigurini ffelvetii convitia, mendacia, ft manifesto criminafalsi deteguntur ac solide refutantur . . . ex actis
publicia. Vitemb. 1614; Francof. and Lips. 1690. (This is the most elaborate defense of the 'Form of
Concord1 called forth by Hospinian's Cone, discors, and covers 1460 pp., exclusive of Proleg.)
J. MDS^EUS : Preelections in Epitom. Form. Cone. Jen. 1701.
VAL. LOSOHEB: Historic* motuum, etc. Leipz. 1723, Tom. III. Lib. VI. c. 5 and 9.
JAO. H. BALTHASAB: Historie des Torgtechen Suchs als des ntichnten Entwwfs des Bergischen Concordien*
bwhs, etc. Greifswald, 1741-56. (In nine parts or dissertations.)
J. Nio. ANTON : Geschichte der Concordienformel. Leipz, 1779.
G. J. PI.ANOK: Geschichte der Entstehung, etc., unseres Protest. Lehrbegri/s . . . Us zur EinfShrung
der ConcordienformeL Leipz. 1791-1800. Vols. IV.-VI. A work of thorough learning, independent
judgment, but without proper appreciation of the doctrinal differences.
GOTTFB, THOMASIUS (Lutheran) : Dos Bekenntntes der evangel, luther. Kirche in der Conseqitem seines
Princips. Nurnberg, 1848.
K. FB. GOSOUBL (Lutheran) : Die Concordienformel nach ihrer Geschichte, Lehre und. kirchlichen Bedeu-
twng. Leipz. 1858.
H. L. J. HKPP/S (Reformed) : Geschichte des deutschen Protestantismus in den Jahren 1555-81. Marburg,
1852-«8. 4 vols. (The last two volumes contain the history of the 'Form of Concord' and of the 'Book
of Concord,' and are also published under the separate title « GeRchichte der lutherischen Concordienformel
und Concordie.*)
GIBSJELBB : Text-Book of Church History. American edition, by H. B. Smith, Vol. IV. (New York, 1862),
pp. 423-490 ; German edition, Vol. III. P. IT. (Bonn, 1853), pp. 187-310. (A condensed, careful, and im-
partial statement of the controversies, with citations from the original authorities.)
DAN. SOHBNKRL: Art. Concordienformel, in Herzog's TteaZ-T'Jnct/fcZ., Vol. III. (1855), pp. 87-105.
WILH. GABS: Geschichte der Protest. Dogmatik in ihrem Zurammenhang wit der Theologie uberhauvt.
Berlin, 1854-67, 4 vols. Vol. I. pp. 21-80.
GUBTAV FBANK (of Jena) : Geschichte der Protest. Theologie. Leipz. 1862. Vol. L pp. 92-290.
F. H. R. FBANK (Lutheran) : Die Theologie der Concordienformel hist, dogmatisch entwichelt und Uleuch-
tet Brlangen, 1S5S-65. 4 vols. (Chiefly doctrinal.)
H. F. A. KAHNIS (Lutheran) : Die Mher. DogmatiktVol. II. (Leipzig, 1864), pp. 515-560.
Is. A. DOBNBB: Geschichte der protestantischen Theologie (Miinchen, 1867), pp. 330-374.
CHAS. P. KBAHTH (Lutheran): The Conservative Reformation and its Theology (Phila. 1872), pp. 288-328.
Dentonol for dritien Jubetfeier der Concordienformel 1877. St. Louis, 1877.
NAME. ORIGIN AND OCCASION.
The FORM OF CONCORD (formula Concordice), the last of the Lu-
theran Confessions, completed in 1577 and first published in 1580, is
named from its aim to give doctrinal unity and peace to the Lutheran
§ 45. THE FOEM OF CONCORD, 1577. 259
Church, after long and bitter contention.1 The work was occasioned
by a series of doctrinal controversies, which raged in the Lutheran
Church for thirty years with as much passion and violence as the
trinitarian and christological controversies in the Nicene age. They
form a humiliating and unrefreshing, yet instructive and important
chapter in the history of Protestantism. The free spirit of the Ref-
ormation, which had fought the battles against the tyranny of the
Papacy and brought to light the pure doctrines of the Gospel, gave
way to bigotry and intolerance among Protestants themselves. Cal-
umny, abuse, intrigue, deposition, and exile were unsparingly employed
as means to achieve victory. Religion was confounded with theology,
piety with orthodoxy, and orthodoxy with an exclusive confessionalism.
Poctrine was overrated, and the practice of Christianity neglected
The contending parties were terribly in earnest, and as honest and
pious in their curses as in their blessings ; they fought as if the salva-
tion of the world depended on their disputes. Yet these controversies
were unavoidable in that age, and resulted in the consolidation and
completion of the Lutheran system of doctrine. All phases and types
of Christianity must develop themselves, and God overrules the wrath
of theologians for the advancement of truth.
LUTHER AND MELANOHTHON".
The seeds of these controversies lay partly and chiefly in the theo-
logical differences between Luther and Melanchthon in their later
years, partly in the relations of Lutheranism to Romanism and Cal-
vinism.
Luther the Reformer, and Melanchthon the Teacher of Germany,
essentially one and inseparable in mind and heart, in doctrine and life,
represented in their later period, which may be dated from the year
1533, two types of Lutheranism, the one the conclusive and exclusive,
the other the expansive and unionistic type. Luther, at first more he-
roic and progressive, became more cautious and conservative; while
1 The name was chosen after older formularies (e. g., the Henoticon of Emperor Zeno, the
Formula Concordice Wittenbergensis, 1536, the Formula Concordice inter Suevicas et Saxo-
nicas ecclesias, 1576, etc.), and occurs first in the edition of Heidelberg, 1582. In the editio
princeps (1580) the book is called lDas Buck der Concordien,' but this title was afterwards re-
served for the collection of all the Lutheran symbols (* Concordia,' or 'Liber Concordice,' 'Book
qf Concord1). It was also called the Bergische-Buch, from the place of its composition.
260 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Melanchthon, at first following the lead of the older and stronger
Lnther, became more independent and liberal.
Luther, as the Eeformer of the Romish Church, acted in the gen-
eral interest of evangelical religion, and enjoys the admiration and
gratitude of all Protestants; Luther, as the leader of a particular de-
nomination, assumed a hostile attitude towards other churches, even
Kiicli as rested on the same foundation of the renewed gospel. After
his bold destructive and constructive movements, which resulted step
by step in the emancipation from popery, he felt disposed to rest in
his achievements. His disgust with the radicalism and fanaticism of
Carlstadt and Miinzer, his increasing bodily infirmities, and his dis-
satisfaction with affairs in Wittenberg (which he threatened to leave
permanently in 1544), cast a cloud over his declining years. He had
so strongly committed himself, and was so firm in his convictions, that
he was averse to all further changes and to all compromises. He was
equally hostile to the Pope, whom he hated as the very antichrist, and
to Zwingli, whom he regarded as little better than an infidel.1
1 The deepest ground of Luther's aversion to Zwingli must be sought in his mysticism and
veneration for what he conceived to be the unbroken faith of the Church. He strikingly
expressed this in his letter to Duke Albrecht of Prussia (which might easily be turned into a
powerful argument against the Reformation itself). He went so far as to call Zwingli a
non-Christian (Unchriri), and ten times worse than a papist (March, 1528, in his Great Con-
fession on the Lord's Supper). His personal interview with him at Marburg (October, 1529)
produced no change, but rather intensified his dislike. He saw in the heroic death of Zwingli
and the defeat of the Zurichers at Cappel (1531) a righteous judgment of God, and found
fault with the victorious Papists for not exterminating his heresy (Wider etliche Rottengeister,
Letter to Albrecht of Prussia, April, 1532, in Be Wette's edition of L. Brief e, Vol. IV. pp.
352, 353). And even shortly before his death, unnecessarily offended by a new publication
of Zwingli's works, he renewed the eucharistic controversy in his Short Confession on the
Lord's Supper (1544, in Walch's edition, Vol. XX. p. 2195), in which he abused Zwingli and
Oecolampadius as heretics, liars, and murderers of souls, and calls the "Reformed generally
'eingeteufelte [li/&a/3oXwr&8vr£c], durchteufelte, uberteufelte Idsterliche Herzen und Lugen-
mauler.' No wonder that even the gentle Melanchthon called this a 'most atrocious book,'
and gave up all hope for union (letter to Bullinger, Aug. 30, 1544, in Corp. Reform. Vol. V.
p. 475 : * Atrocissimum Lutheri scriptum, in quo bellum tripi dt'nrvov Kvptaicov instaurat;' comp.
also his letter to Bucer, Aug. 28, 1544, in Corp. Reform. Vol. V. p. 474, both quoted also by
Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 412, note 38, and p. 434, note 37). But it should in justice be added,
first, that Luther's heart was better than his temper, and, secondly, that he never said a word
against Calvin ; on the contrary, he seems to have had great regard for him, to judge from
his scanty utterances concerning him (quoted by Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 414, note 43). Calvin
behaved admirably on that occasion ; he warned Bullinger (Nov. 25, 1544) not to forget the
extraordinary gifts and services of Luther, and said : ' Even if he should call me a devil, I
would nevertheless honor him as a chosen servant of God. ' And to Melanchthon he wrote
(June 28, 1545) : * I confess that we all owe the greatest thanks to Luther, and I should cheer-
§ 45. THE FORM OF COtfCOBD, 1577.
Melanchthoi), on the other hand, with less genius but more learning^
with less force but more elasticity, with less intuition but more logic
and system than Luther, and with a most delicate and conscientious
regard for truth and peace, yet not free from the weakness of a com-
promising and temporizing disposition, continued to progress in the-
ology, and modified his views on two points — the freedom of the will
and the presence of Christ in the Eucharist; exchanging his Augus-
tinianism for Synergism, and relaxing his Lutheranism in favor of Cal-
vinism ; in both instances he followed the ethical, practical, and union-
istic bent of his mind. A minor difference on the human right of the
papacy and episcopacy appeared in private letters and in his qualified
subscription to the Smalcald Articles (1537), but never assumed a seri-
ous, practical aspect, except indirectly in the adiaphoristic controversy.1
These changes were neither sudden nor arbitrary, but the result of
profound and constant study, and represented a legitimate and neces-
sary phase in the development of Protestant theology, which was pub-
licly recognized in various ways before the formation of the 'Form of
Concord.' If there ever was a modest, cautious, and scrupulously con-
scientious scholar, it was Melanchthon. < There is not a day nor a night
for the last ten years,3 he assures an intimate friend, c that I did not
meditate upon the doctrine of the Lord's Supper.' 2
fully concede to him the highest authority, if he only knew how to control himself. Good
God ! what juhilee we prepare for the Papists, and what sad example do we set to posterity!'
Melanchthon entirely agreed with him.
1 Kahnis (Lnth. Dogm. Vol. II. p. 520) traces the changes of Melanchthon to *a truly evan-
gelical search after truth, to a practical trait, which easily breaks off the theological edges to
bring the doctrine nearer to life, and to the endeavor to reconcile opposites.' Krauth (Con-
servative Reformation^ p. 289), who sympathizes with strict Lutheranism, says : ' Melanch-
thon's vacillations were due to his timidity and gentleness of character, tinged as it was with
melancholy ; his aversion to controversy ; his philosophical, humanistic, and classical cast of
thought, and his extreme delicacy in matters of style ; his excessive reverence for the testi-
mony of the Church, and of her ancient writers ; his anxiety that the whole communion of
the West should be restored to harmony ; or that, if this were impossible, the Protestant ele-
ments, at least, should be at peace/ Comp. on this whole subject the works of GALLE:
CharacteristikMelanvhthoris als Theologen und Ent wicTclung seines Lehrbegriffs (Halle, 1840),
pp. 247 sqq. and 363 sqq.; MATTHER: Phil. Melanchthon (Altenb. 1841); EBRARD: Das
Dogma vom heil. Abendmahl (Frankf. 1846), Vol. II. pp. 434 sqq. ; GIESELER: Church His-
toi*y, Vol. IV. pp. 423 sqq. ; HEPPE : Die confessioneUe Entwicklung der altprotestantischen
Kirche Deutschlands (Marburg, 1854), pp. 95 sqq. ; CARL SCHMIDT: Philipp Melanchthon
(Elberfeld, 1861), pp. 300 sqq. ; KAHNIS, 1. c. pp. 515 sqq.
* £jp. ad Vitum Theodorum, May 24, 1 538 (in Corp. Reform. Vol. III. p. 537) : ' Scias, am*
plius decennio mtllum diem, nullam noctem abiisse, guin hoc de re cogitarim.'
262 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
As to human freedom, Melauchthon at first denied it altogether, like
Luther and the other Reformers, and derived all events and actions,
good and bad, from the absolute will of God.1 Then he avoided the
doctrine of predestination, as an inscrutable mystery, and admitted
freedom in the sphere of natural life and morality, but still denied it
in the spiritual sphere or the order of grace.2 At last (after 1535) he-
open ly renounced determinism or necessitarianism, as a Stoic and
Manichsean error, and taught a certain subordinate co-operation of
the human will in the work of conversion ; maintaining that conver-
sion is not a mechanical or magical, but a moral process, and is brought
about by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God, with the consent,
yet without any merit of man. The Spirit of God is the primary, the
Word of God the secondary or instrumental agent of conversion, and
the human will allows this action, and freely yields to it.3
1 Loci theol. first ecL 1 52 1, A. 7: * Quandoquidem omnia, quce eveniunt, necessario juxta
divinnm prwdestinationem eveniunt, nulla est voluntatis nostroe libertasS In the edition of
1 525 he says : * Omnia necessario evenire Scriptures docent. . . . Nee in externis nee in in-
ternis operibus ulla est libertas, sed eveniunt omnia juxta destinationem divinam. . . . TolKt
omnem libertatem voluntatis nostrce prcedestinatio divina.' (Mel. Opera in Corp. Reform. Vol.
XXI. pp. 88, 98, 95.) In his Commentary on the Romans, published 1524 (cap. 8), Melanch-
thon calls the power of choice a ^ridiculum commentum,' and derives all things, 'tarn bona quam
mala,' from the absolute will of God, even the adultery of David (' Davidis adulterium ') and the
treason of Judas (' Judce proditw), which are the proper work of God ('ejus proprium opus'}
as much as the vocation of Paul ; for he does all things not 'permissive, sed potenter? He
saw this doctrine so clearly in the Epistle to the Romans and other portions of Scripture that
passages like I Tim. ii. 4 (all men, e, g., all sorts of men) must be adjusted to it. ISee Galle,
pp. 252 sqq., and Heppe, Dogmatik des deutschen Protestantismus in \6ten Jahrh. (Gotha,
1857) Vol. I. pp. 434 sqq. In December, 1525, Luther expressed the same views in his book
against Erasmus, which he long afterwards (1537) pronounced one of his best works. Comp.
p. 2 1 5, and Kostlin, Luther's Theol Vol. II. pp. 87, 323. But on Melanchthon the reply of
Erasmus (1526) had some effect (as we may infer from the tone of his letter to Luther, Oct. 2,
1527, Corp. Reform.VoL I. p. 893).
3 So in the Augsburg Confession (1530), Art. XVIII. : 'jDe libe.ro arbitrio docent, quod
humana vo hint as habeat aliquam libertatem ad efficiendam civil em justitiam et diligendas res
rationi subjectas. Sed non habet vim sine Spiritu Sancto ejfficiendcB justitice spiritualis, quia
animalis homo non percipit ea, quce sunt Spiritus Dei.1 In Art. XIX. the cause of sin is traced
to the will of man and the devil.
3 First in a new edition of his Commentary to the Romans, 1532, and then in the edition
of the 'Loci communes theologici recogniti,' 1535. Here he declares that God is not the
cause of sin, but the 'voluntas DiaboW and the 'roluntas hominis sunt causce. peccati;' that
we should keep clear of the 'deliramenta de Stoico fato aut irsal rfc ai/ayiojc;' that the hu-
man will can 'suis viribus sine renovatione aliquo modo externa legis opera facere,' but that it
can not * sine Spiritu Sancto efficer* spirituals affectus, quos Deus requirit. . . . Deus ante-
vertit nos, vocat, movet, adjuvat; sed nos mderimus ne repugnewus. Constat enim peccatum
oriri a nobis, non a voluntate Dei. Chrysostomus inquit: 6 Se f'Xwwv rbv jSoiAojuevoi' €\K£t. Id
apte dicitur auspicanti a verbo, ne adversetitr, ne repugnet verbo.' (See Mel. Opera in 6*0730,
§ 45. THE FORM OF CONCORD, 1577. 263
This is the amount of his Synergism, so called by his opponents. It
resembles, indeed, semi-Pelagianism in maintaining a remnant of free-
dom after the fall, and furnished a basis for negotiations with mod-
erate Romanists, but it differs from it materially in ascribing the initia-
tive, and the whole merit of conversion to God's grace. He never
gave up the doctrine of justification by the free grace and sole merit
of Christ through faith, but in his later years he laid greater stress
on the responsibility of man in accepting or rejecting the gospel, and
on the necessity of good works as evidences of justifying faith.
As to the Lord's Supper, he at first fully agreed with Luther's view,
under the impression that it was substantially the old Catholic doctrine
held by the fathers, for whom he had great regard, especially in matters
of uncertain exegesis.1 He also shared his dislike of Zwingli's theo-
logical radicalism, and was disposed to trace it to a certain insanity.2
But his deeper and long-continued study of the subject, and his cor-
respondence and personal intercourse with Bucer and Calvin, gradually
convinced him that St. Augustine and other fathers favored rather a
Reform. Vol. XXI. pp. 371-376.) In a new revision of his Loci, which appeared in 1548,
two years after Luther's death, and in all subsequent editions, he traces conversion to three
concurrent causes — the Spirit of God, the Word of God, and the will of man ; and states
that the will may accept or reject God's grace. * Veteres aliquij he says {Corp. Reform.'Vol.
XXI. pp. 567, 659), 'sic dixerunt : Liberum arbitrium in homine FACULTATEM esse APPLICANDI
SE AD GR \TIAM, i.e., audit promissionem et assentiri conatur et abjicit peccata contra conscien-
tiam. . . . Cum promissio sit univer satis, nee sint in Deo contradictories voluntates, necesse est
in tiobis esse aliquam discriminis caitsam, cur Saul abjiciatur, David recipiatwr, i. e., necesse
est, aliquant esse actionem dissimilem in his duobus. Hac dextre intellecta vera sunt, et usits in
exercitiis fidei et in vera consolation^ cum cequiescunt animi in FilioDei monstrato inpromis-
sione, illustrabit hanc COPTJLATIONEM CAUSARUM, VERBI DEI, SPIRITUS SANCTI, ET VOLUN-
TATIS. ' This is the chief passage, which was afterwards (1 553) assailed as synergistic. Comp.
Galle, pp. 314 sqq. ; Gieseler, Vol. IV. pp. 426 and 434 ; Heppe, 1. c. pp. 434 sqq., and Die con-
fessionelle Entwicldung <jer alt protest Kirche Deutschlands, pp. 107 and 130 ; Kahilis, 1. c.
Vol. II. p. 505.
1 He says (1559) : ' Existimo ad confirmandas mentes consensum Vetustatis plurimum condu-
ced (quoted hy Galle, p. 452). He endeavored to prove the agreement of the fathers with
Luther in Sentential Patrum de Ccena Domini, March, 1 530. He there quotes Cyril, Chrysos^
torn, Theophylactus, Hilary, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Ambrose, and John of Damascus, and lahors also
to bring Augustine on his side, but with difficulty ^as he says that the body of Christ in uno
loco esse), and he admits that some passages of Jerome, Gregory of Nazianzum, and Basil might
be quoted against Luther. See Galle, pp. 300 sqq.
a He wrote to Luther from Augsburg, July 14, 1530 (Corp. Reform. Vol. II. p, 193); eZwin-
glius misit hue confessionem impressam typis. Dicas simpliciter mente cctptum esse. De pec-
cato originally de usu sacramentorum veteres errores palam renovat. De ceremoniis loquitur
valde helvetice, hoc est barbarissime, velle se omnes ceremonias esse abolitas. Suam causam d
sacra co&na vehementer urget. JEpiscopos omnes vult deletes esse.1
VOL. I— S
264 THE CBEEBS OF CHKISTENDOM.
"figurative or symbolical interpretation of the words of institution,1 and
that the Scriptures taught a more simple, spiritual, and practical doc-
trine than either transubstantiation or consubstantiation. Owing to his
rharacteristic modesty and caution, and his deep sense of the difficulties
surrounding the problem, he did not set forth a fully developed theory or
definition of the mode of Christ's presence, but he substantially agreed
with Bucer and Calvin. He gave up the peculiar features of Luther's
doctrine, viz., the literal interpretation of the words of institution, and
the oral manducation of the body of Christ.2 He also repeatedly reject
ed (as, in fact, he never taught) the Lutheran dogma of the ubiquity of
Christ's body, as being inconsistent with the nature of a body and with
the fact of Christ's ascension to heaven and sitting in heaven, whence
he shall return to judgment3 But he never became a Zwinglian; he
1 In this respect the learned Dialogus of Oecolampadius (1530), directed against his Sen-
tentice, made a decided impression on his mind. See Galle, p. 407, and Gieseler, Vol. IV.
p. 428. He found a great diversity of views among the fathers (* wiVa dissimilitude,' see let-
ter to Bucer, 1535, Corp. Reform. Vol. II. p. 842), but strong proofs for the figurative inter-
pretation in Augustine, Tertullian, Origen, and all those who speak of the euchanstic ele-
ments asjigures, symbols, types, and antitypes of the body and blood of Christ (see his letter
to Crato of Breslau, 1559, quoted by Galle, p. 452).
a He first renounced Luther's view, after an interview with Bucer at Cassel, in a letter to
Camerarius, Jan. 10, 1535 (Corp. Reform.Vol. II. p. 822 : 'Meani sententiam noli nunc requi*
rere,fui enim nuncius alice, ' i. e. , Luther's), and in a confidential letter toBrentius, Jan. 1 2, 1535
(Ib. Vol. II. p. 824, where he speaks in a Greek sentence of the typical interpretation of many
of the ancients). Then more fully in the revision of his Loci Theol., 1535 (de ccena Domini, in
Corp. Reform.Vol. XXI. p. 478 sq.). In the Wittenberg Concordia (1 536) he and Bucer yield-
ed too much to Luther for the sake of peace (compare, however, Dorner, p. 325), but in 1540
he introduced his new conviction into the tenth article of the Augsburg Confession (see above,
p. 241), and adhered to it. In his subsequent deliverances he protested against ubiquity and
apToXaTpeia, and the fanatical intolerance of the ultra-Lutherans, who denounced him as a
traitor. Calvin publicly declared that he and Melanchthon were inseparably united on this
point : * Confirmo, now magis a me Philippwn quam a propriis visceribus in hac causa posse di-
•odli (Admonitio ultima ad Westphalum, Opp. VIII. p. 687). Galle maintains that Melanch-
thon stood entirely on Calvin's side (1. c. p. 445). So does Ebrard, who says: ' Melanchthon
kam^ ohne awf Calvin Riieksicht zu nehmen,ja ohne von dessen Lehre wissen zu k&nnen^ auf
selbstandigem Wege zu derselben Ansicht, welche lei Calvin sich ausgebildet hatte"1 (Das Dogma
o. heil. Abendmahl, Vol. II. p. 437). Yet in the doctrine of predestination they were wide
apart. A beautiful specimen of harmony of spirit with diversity in theology ! After his
3eath Calvin appealed to the sainted spirit of Melanchthon now resting with Christ: tDixisti
centies, cumfessus laboribus et molestiis oppresses caput familiariter in sinwn meum deponerfs:
(Jtinam, utinam moriar in hoc sinu! Ego vero millies postea optavi nobis contingcrt, ut simul
essemus' (Opp.VllI. p. 724).
3 Dorner, 1. c. p. 354 : ' Melanchthon hat Lathers christologische Ansichten aits derZeit des
Abendmahlsstreites nie getheih. Die Mensahwerdnng lesteht ihm in der Aufnahme der men-
sr.hlichen Natw in die PERSON dies Logos, nicht aber in derEinigung (unio) der NATUR desLo-
//os mit der Menschheit in realer Mittheilung der Predicate der ersteren an die letztere. Di<*
§ 45. THE FORM OF CONdOKl), 1577'. 265
held fast to a spiritual real presence of the person (rather than the
body) of Christ, and a fruition of his life and benefits by faith. In
one of his last utterances, shortly before his death, he represented the
idea of a vital union and communion with the person of Christ as the
one and only essential thing in this sacred ordinance.1
Luther no doubt felt much grieved at these changes, and was strong-
ly pressed by contracted and suspicious minds to denounce them openly^
but he was too noble and generous to dissolve a long and invaluable
friendship, which forms one of the brightest chapters in his life and in
the history of the German Reformation.2 He kept down the rising
communicatio idiomatum ist ihm nur eine dialektische, verbale: die Person des Logos ist Per-
son des ganzen Christus und trdgt die Menschheit ah ihr Organon.'
1 'jResponsio Phil. Mel. ad qucestionem de controversiaHeidelbergensi (Corp. J5e/br?n.Vol. IX.
p. 961): Non difficile^ sed periculosum est respondere. . . . In hac controversies optimum esset
.vtinere verbaPauli: "Panis, quern frangimus, Koivwvia icrrl rov <ro»/iaTO£." Et copiose dt
fructu Ccence dicendum est, ut invitentur homines ad amorem hujus pignoris et crebrum usum.
Et vocabu/um icoivutvia declarandum est. Non dicit, ?nutari naturam panis, ut Papistce dicunt;
non dicit, ut Bremenses, panem esse substantiate corpus Christi; non dicit, ut Heshusius, pa-
nem esse verum corpus Christi: sed esse KOiv<t>viav9i.Q., hoc, quo Jit consociatio cum corpore
Christi, quce Jit in usu, et quidem non sine cogitatione, ut cum mures panem rodunt. . . . Adest
Filius Dei in ministerio Evangelii, et ibi certo est efficax in credentibus, ac adest non propter
panem, sed propter hominem, sicut inquit: "Manete in me, et ego in vobis." ' Comp. on the
whole eucharistic doctrine of Melanchthon the learned exposition of Heppe, in the third vol-
ume of his Dogmatik des deutschen Protestantisms im IQten Jahrh. pp. 143 sqq. He says,
p. 150, with reference to the passage just quoted : Dimmer und uberall betont es Melanchthon^
dass Christi Leib und Blut im Abendmahle mitgetheilt wird, inwiefern daselbst eine Mitthei-
lung des LEBBNDIGEN Leibes, der gottmenschlichen PERSON Christi stattfindet, dass die V&r~
einigung Christi und der Glaubigen, fur welche das Abendmahl gestiftet ist< eine persdnliche
Gemeineschaft, persSnliches, lebendiges, wirksames Einwohnen des Gottmenschen in dem Glau-
bigen ist.' Fee also Ebrard, Vol. IL pp. 434 sqq.
8 Their friendship was, indeed, seriously endangered, and for some time suspended, but
fully restored again ; for it rested on their union with Christ. Luther wrote to Melanchthon,
June 18, 1540 (Brief e, Vol. V. p. 293): 'Nos tecum, et tu nobiscum, et Christus hie et ibi
nobiscum.1 He spoke very highly of Melanchthon Js Loci in March, 1545, and in January,
1546, he called him a true man, who must be retained in Wittenberg, else half the university
would go off with him (Corp. Reform. Vol. VI. p. 10 ; Gieseler, Vol. IV. pp. 432-435). Dor-
ner justly remarks (1. c. p. 332 sq.): lWenn zu dem Edelsten in Luther auch die ihn zum
Reformator befahigende Weitherzigkeit und Demuth gehdrte, womit er die eigenthumlichen
Gaben Anderer, vor allem Melanchthon *s anerkannte, so war es das Bestreben jener engherzi-
$n Freunde, Luthern aufsich selbst zu beschrSnken, der Erganzungsbedurftigkeit auch dieser
tfieUeicht grossten nachapostolischen Persb'nlichkeit zu vergessen und, was ihnenjedoch nicht
gelang, auch ihn selbst derselben vergessen zu machen.' Melanchthon, on his part, although he
complained at times of Luther's 0i\ovaKi'« (as a TTO^OC, not a crimen), and overbearing vio-
lence of temper, and thought once (1544) seriously of leaving Wittenberg as a 'prison,1 ad-
mired and loved him to the end, as the Elijah of the "Reformation and as his spiritual father. In
announcing to his students the death of Luther (Feb. 18, 1546) on the day following, he paid
him this noble and just tribute : * Obiit auriga et currus Israel, qui rexit ecclesiam in hac. ultima
266 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
antagonism by the weight of his personal authority, although he foresaw
the troubles to come.1 After his death (1546) the war broke out with
unrestrained violence. Melanchthon was too modest, peaceful, and
gentle for the theological leadership, which now devolved upon him ;
he kept aloof from strife as far as possible, preferring to bear injury
and insult with Christian meekness, and longed to be delivered from
the 'fury of the theologians3 (a ralie theologorum), which greatly em-
bittered his declining years.2 He left the scene of discord April 19,
1560, fourteen years after Luther. His last wish and prayer was 'that
the churches might be of one mind in Jesus Christ.3 He often repeat-
ed the words, c Let them all be one, even as thou, Father, art in me,
and I in thee.' He died with the exclamation, < 0 God, have mercy
upon me for the sake of thy Son Jesus Christ ! In thee, O Lord, have
I put my trust; I shall not be confounded forever and ever.3 The
earthly remains of the 'Preceptor Germanive? were deposited beneath
the castle church of Wittenberg alongside of Luther's : united in life,
they sleep together in death till the morning of the resurrection to ever-
lasting life.
LUTHERANS AND PHILIPPISTS.
The differences between Luther the second and Melanchthon the
second, if we may use this term, divided the theologians of the Augs-
burg Confession into two hostile armies.
The rigid Lutheran party was led by Amsdorf, Flacins, Wigand,
Gallus, Judex, Morlin, Heshus, Timann, and Westphal, and had its head-
quarters first at Magdeburg, then at the University of Jena, and at last
in Wittenberg (after 1574). They held fast with unswerving fidelity to
the anti-papal and anti-Zwinglian Luther, as representing the ultimate
form of sound orthodoxy. They swore by the letter, but had none of
senecta mundij and added, 'Amemus igitur hujus viri memoriam et genus doctrines ab ipso
traditum, et simus modestiores et consideremus ingentes calamitates et mutationes magnets, qua
hunc casum stint sccuturce.' Comp. Planck, 1. c. Vol. IV. pp. 71-77.
1 While sick at Smalcald, 1587, he told the Elector of Saxony that after his death discord
would break out in the University of Wittenberg, and his doctrine would be changed. Seck-
endorf, Com. de Lutheranismo, III. p. 165.
a ''Ego cequissimo animoj he wrote to Oamerarius, Feb 24, 1545 (Corp. JRe/bnw. Vol. V.
p. 684), 'vel potius avai<?$fiT(*)£ fero insolentiam gat vfiptig multorum, et dum vivam moderate
faciam officium meum.1
§ 45. THE FOBM OF CONCORD, 1577.
the free spirit of their great master.1 They outluthered Luther, made
a virtue of .his weakness, constructed his polemic extravagances into
dogmas, and contracted the catholic expansiveness of the Reformation
into sectarian exclusiveness. They denounced every compromise with
Rome, and every approach to the Reformed communion, as cowardly
treachery to the cause of evangelical truth.
Among these Lutherans, however, we must distinguish three classes
—the older friends of Luther (Jonas, his colleague, and Amsdorf,
whom he had consecrated Bishop of Nauinburg < without suet or
grease or coals'), the younger and stormy generation headed by Fla-
cius, and the milder framers of the 'Form of Concord' (Andreae,
Chemnitz, Selnecker, and Chytrseus), who stood mediating between
ultra-Lutheranism and Melanchthonianism.
The Melanchthonians, nicknamed PHILIPPISTS and CRYPTO-CALVEST-
T.STS,2 prominent among whom were Camerarius, Bugenhagen, Eber,
Orel!, Major, Cruciger, Strigel, Pfeffinger, Peucer (physician of the
Elector of Saxony, and Melanchthon's son-in-law), had their strong-
hold in the Universities of Wittenberg and Leipzig (till 1574), and
maintained, with less force of will and conviction, but with more lib-
erality and catholicity of spirit, the right of progressive development
in theology, and sought to enlarge the doctrinal basis of Lutheranism
for a final reconciliation of Christendom, or at least for a union of
the evangelical churches.3
Both parties maintained the supreme authority of the Bible, but the
1 Melanchthon applies to them a saying of Polybius, that * votentes videri similes magnis
viris, ' and being unable to imitate the works (epya) of Luther, they imitated his by-works
(7rap«pya), let producunt in theatrum stuhitiam warn.' Calvin more severely but not unjustly
remarks (in his second defense against Westphal, 1556) : ' 0 Lvthere, quam paucos tuce prce-
stantice imitatores, quam multas vero sanctcB tua jactantice simias reliquisti /' See Gieseler,
Vol. IV, p. 435, and especially Planck, Vol. IV. pp. 79 sqq.
3 The term Philippists (from the Christian name of Melanchthon, who was usually called
Dr. Philippus) is wider, and embraced the Synergists, while the term Crypto-Calvinists ap-
plies properly only to those who secretly held the Calvinistic doctrine on the eucharist, but
not on predestination. Some of the strict Lutherans — as Iflacius, Amsdorf, and Heshus —
held fast to the original views of Luther and Melanchthon' on predestination, and taught that
man was purely passive and even repugnant (repugnative) in the work of conversion. Comp.
Landerer in Herzog, Vol. XL p. 538.
3 Kahnis (Vol. II. p. 520) thus characterizes the two parties : * Dort [among the strict Lu-
therans] das Printip des Festhaltens, hier [among the Philippists] das Prindp des Fort-
schreitens; dort scharfeAusschliesslichkeit, hier Weite, Milde, Vermittelunff, Union ; dvrtfer-
iige.feste Doctrin, hier prdktische ElastidtatS
268 THE CREEDS 0£ CHRISTENDOM.
Lutherans went with the Bible as understood by Luther, the Philippists
with the Bible as explained by Melanchthon; with the additional
difference that the former looked up to Luther as an almost inspired
apostle, and believed in his interpretation as final, while the latter re-
vered Melanchthon simply as a great teacher, and reserved a larger
margin for reason and freedom.1
Both parties set forth new confessions of faith and bulky collections
of doctrine (Corpora Doctrinoe), which were clothed with symbolical
authority in different territories, and increased the confusion and in-
tensified the antagonism.2
THE THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES IN THE LUTHERAN CHURCH.
The controversies which preceded the composition of the 'Form of
Concord,' centred in the soteriological doctrines of the Reformation,
concerning sin and grace, justification by faith, and the use of good
works, but they extended also to the eucharist and the person and work
of Christ. We notice them in the order of the * Form of Concord.'
I. THE FLAOIAN CONTROVERSY ON ORIGINAL SIN, 1560-1 680.8
This controversy involved the question whether original sin is essen-
tial or accidental — in other words, whether it is the nature of man itself
1 In the Preface to the Magdeburg Confession, 1550, Luther is called 'the third Elijah,'
*the prophet of God/ and Luther's doctrine, without any qualification, 'the doctrine of Christ.1
See Heppe : Die Entstehung und Fortbildung des Lutherthums, pp. 42, 43. In the Reussische
Confession of 1567 ( Heppe, p. 76) it is said: 'We quote chiefly the writings of Luther as our
prophet (als unseres Propheteri), and prefer them to the writings of Philippus and others, who
are merely children of the prophet (Prophetenkinder) and his disciples/ The overestimate
of Luther is well expressed in the lines —
' Gottes Wort und Luther's Lehr
Vergehet nun und nimmermehr.'
3 Prof. Heppe, in his Die Entstehung und Fortbildung des Lutherthums und die Jcirchlichen
Bekenntniss-Schriften desselben von 1548-1576 (Cassel, 1863), gives extracts from twenty
Lutheran Confessions which appeared during this period of twenty-eight years.
3 Disputatio de originali peccato et libero arbitrio inter MATTHIAM FLACIUM ILLYRICUM
et VICTORINUM STRIGELIUM, 1563; FLACIUS: De peccato orig^ in the second part of his
Cfaois Scrip turcsSacroK.l 507; TiL.*HESHUSiU8: Antidoton contra impium et blasphemum dogma
M. FL III 1572, 3d ed. 1579; J. WIGAND: De Manichceismo renovato, 1587; SCHI.USSKL-
BURG: Cat. hcer. 1597, Lib. II. ; PLANCK, Vol. V. pp. 1, 285; DOLLINGER: Die Reforma-
tion, etc. Vol. III. (1848), p. 484; ED. SCHMID: Des Flacius Erbsiindestreit, in Nie'dner's
Zeitschriftfur hist. TheoL 1849, Nos. I. and II. ; FRANK: Die Theologie der Concordienfor^
mel, Vol. I. p. 60 ; DORNER, p. 361, and the monograph of PREGER on Flacius and his Age,
Vol. II. p. 310.
§ 45. THE FORM OF CONCORD, 1577. 269
or merely a corruption of nature. It arose, in close connection with the
Synergistic controversy, from a colloquy at Weimar between Flacius
and Strigel (1560), extended from Saxony as far as Austria, and con-
tinned till the death of Flacius (1575), and even after the completion
of the ' Form of Concord.3 a
Matthias Flacius Illyricus, the impetuous and belligerent champion
of rigid Lutheranism, a man of vast learning, untiring zeal, unyielding
firmness, and fanatical intolerance, renewed apparently the Manichean
heresy, and thereby ruined himself.2 From an over-intense conviction
of total depravity, he represented original sin as the very substance or
essence of the natural man, who after the fall ceased to be in any sense
the image of God, and became the very image of Satan. He made,
however, a distinction between two substances in man — a physical and
ethical — and did not mean to teach an evil matter in the sense of
1 About forty adherents of Flacius, driven to German Austria (Opitz, Irenaeus, Colestin,
etc.), issued in 1581 a declaration against the 'Form of Concord,* as inconsistent with Lu-
ther's pure doctrine on original sin ; but in 1582 they fell out among themselves. As late as
1 604 there were large numbers of Flacianists in German Austria. Dollinger, Vol. III. p. 492 aq.
2 This remarkable man, born 1520, at Albona, Istria (in niyria, hence called Illyricus), was
a convert from Romanism ; studied at Basle, Tubingen, and Wittenberg under Luther and
Meianchthon, and became Professor of Hebrew in the University of Wittenberg. Luther
attended his wedding, and raised him from a state of mental depression almost bordering on
despair. In consequence of his opposition to the Augsburg and Leipzig Interim, Flacius
removed to Magdeburg (April, 1549), where he opened his literary batteries against Me-
ianchthon and the Inteiim, and undertook with several others the first Protestant Church his-
tory, under the title of 4The Magdeburg Centuries.1 In 1557 he was elected Professor in the
newly founded University of Jena, but was deposed (1562), persecuted, and forsaken even by his
former friends. He spent the remainder of his life in poverty and exile at Ratisbon, Antwerp,
Strasburg, and died in a hospital in Frankfort-on-the-Main, March 11, 1575. Many of his
contemporaries, and the learned historian Planck, represent him merely as a violent, pugna-
cious, obstinate fanatic ; but more recently his virtues and merits have been better appreciated
by Twesten (Matthias Flacius Illyricus, Berlin, 1844), Kling (who calls him one of those wit-
nesses of whom the world was not worthy, in Herzog, Vol. IV. p. 410), and W. Preger (M. Fl.
lllyr. wd seine Zeit, Erlangen, 18">9-61, 2 vols.). Heppe, from his Melanchthonian stand-
point, judges him more unfavorably, and thus characterizes him (in his Confessionelle
JSntwicklung, etc., p. 138) : * M. F lac. Illyricus war ein fanatisfher Verehrer Luther '$, der von
alien Parteigenossen durch Kraft, Consequenz, Klarheit und Sicherheit seiner theologischen
Speculation und durch Energie des Wittens wie des Denkens hervorragend, Jcein Opfer und
kein Mittel — auch nicht den schandlichsten Verrath am Vertrauen Meianchthon s — scheute, urn
sein klar erkanntes Ziel, nanilich die Vernichtung Meianchthon1 s und der bisherigen Tradition
des Protestantismus zu erreichen und dem Bekenntniss derKirche einen ganz anderen Charak-
ter aufznpragen als der war, in dem es sich Usher entwickelt hatte. ' The library of the Union
Theological Seminary, New Tork, possesses a rare collection of the numerous polemical tracts
of Flacius. He has undoubted merits in Church history and exegesis. His best works, besides
the 'Magdeburg Centuries/ are his Catalogue testium ueritaft's, Basil. 1556, and his Clavis
Scriptum Sacros, 2 P, Basil. 1567,
270 THE CREEDS OF CHBISTENDOM.
Gnostic and Manichean dualism, but simply an entire moral corrup
tion of the moral nature, which must be replaced by a new and holy
nature. He departed not so much from the original Protestant doc-
trine of sin as from the usual conception of the Aristotelian terms
substance and aceidens.1 He quoted many strong passages from Lu-
ther, but he found little favor and bitter opposition even among his
friends, and was deposed and exiled with forty-seven adherents. The
chief argument against him was the alternative that his doctrine
either makes Satan the creator of man, or God the author and pre-
server of sin.
IT. THE SYNERGISTIC CONTROVERSY (1550-1567).*
It extended over the difficult subject of man's freedom and his re-
lation to the converting grace of God. It was a conflict between the
original Augustinianism of the Reformers and the later Melanchtho-
nian Synergism, or a refined evangelical modification of semi-Pela-
gianisin.3
Pfeffinger, Professor in Leipzig, who opened the controversy by an
academic dissertation (1550), and then wrote a book on the freedom of
the will (1555), Major, Eber, and Orell, in Wittenberg, and Victorin
Strigel, in Jena, advocated a limited freedom in fallen man, as a
rational and responsible being, namely, the power of accepting the
prevenient grace of God,4 with the corresponding power of reject-
ing it. They accordingly assigned to man a certain though very small
share in the work of conversion, which Pfeffinger illustrated by the
contribution of a penny towards the discharge of a very large debt.
Amsdorf, Flacius, Wigand,and Heshusius, on the other hand, appeal-
1 By rb ffv^^Kog Aristotle means a separable property or quality, which does not essen-
tially belong to a thing. In this sense Flacius denied the accidental character of sin, and
maintained that it entered into the inmost constitution, just as holiness is inherent and essen-
tial in the regenerate.
8 For fuller information, see PFEFFINGER : Proposit. de Hbero arbitrio, 1555; FLACIUS:
De oriff, peccato et Kbero arbitrio, two disputations, 1558 and 1559 ; SciiLUSSKLBURa : Catal
Hceret.]t>$$(Iji\).V.deSynergistis)'1 PLANCK, Vol. IV. p. 553 ; GALLE, p. 326; DO'LLINGBR,
Vol. III. p. 437; GUST. FRANK : Gesch. der Prot. Theol. Vol. I. p. 125, and his art, Syner-
gismus in Herzog, Vol. XV. p. 826 ; FR. H. R. FRANK : Theol der Cone. F. Vol. I. p. 113 ;
DORNER, p. 361 ; and also the literature on the Flacian controversy, especially SCHMID and
PRBGER Cquoted p. 268).
8 See above, p. 262.
4 'Facultas se applicandi ad gratiam.9
§ 45. THE FORM OF CONCORD, 1577. 271
ing to the teaching of Luther,1 maintained that man, being totally cor-
rupt, can by nature only resist the Spirit of God, and is converted
against and in spite of his perverse will, or must receive a new will
before he can accept. God converts a man as the potter moulds the
clay, as the sculptor carves a statue of wood or stone. They also ad-
vocated, as a logical consequence, Luther's original theory of an uncon-
ditional predestination and reprobation. But the 'Form of Concord'
rejected it as well as Synergism, without attempting to solve the diffi-
culty.
Both parties erred in not making a proper distinction between re-
generation and conversion, and between receptive and spontaneous
activity. In regeneration, man is passive, in conversion he is active in
turning to God, but in response to the preceding action of divine
grace, which Augustine calls the gratia prc&veniens. Conversion cer-
tainly is not a compulsory or magical, but an ethical process. God
operates upon man, not as upon a machine or a dead stone (as Flacius
and also the 'Form of Concord' maintain), but as a responsible, ration-
al, moral, and religiously susceptible though very corrupt being ; break-
ing his natural hostility, making willing the unwilling, and preparing
him at every step for corresponding action. So far Melanchthon was
right. But the defect of the Synergistic theory is the idea of a part-
nership between God and man, and a corresponding division of work
and merit. Synergism is less objectionable than semi-Pelagianism, for
it reduces co-operation before conversion to a minimum, but even that
minimum is incompatible with the absolute dependence of man on God.
m. THE OSIAKDRIO CONTROVERSY (1549-1566). a
It touched the central doctrine of Evangelical Lutheranism,/w£&/fca-
tion by faith, whether it is a mere declaratory, forensic art of acquittal
from sin and guilt, or an actual infusion of righteousness.
1 Especially his book de servo arbitrio. Luther calls the voluntas of the natural man
noluntas, and compares him to the column of salt, Lot's wife, a block and stone. Similar
terms are used in the 'Form of Concord.'
a OSIANDER : Disputationes duce: una de Lege et Evangelic (1549), altera de Justification*
(1550), Regiom. 1550; De unico Mediator e Jes. Chr. et Justificatione Jidei confessio A. Osian-
dri,Regiom. 1551 ; Schmeckbier, Konigsberg, 1552 ; Widerlegung der Antwort Melanchthons,
1552. ANTON OTTO HERZBERGER: Wider die tiefgesuchten und scharfgespitzten^ aber doch
nichtigen Ursachen Osianders, Magdeburg, 1552; GALLUS: Probe des Geistes Osiandri,
Magdeb. 1552 ; MENIUS : Die Gerechtigkeit, die fur Gott gilt, wider die neue alcumistische The*
272 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Luther and the other Eeformers made a clear distinction between
justification as an external act of God for man, and sanctification as
an internal act of God in man ; and yet viewed them as inseparable,
sanctification being the necessary effect of justification. Faith was
to them an appropriation of the whole Christ, a bond of vital union
with his person first, and in consequence of this a participation of his
benefits,1
In the Osiandric controversy, justification and sanctification were
either confounded or too abstractedly separated, and the person of
Christ was lost sight of in his work or in one of his two natures.
Andrew Osiander (1498-1552), an eminent Lutheran minister and re-
former at Nuremberg (since 1522), afterwards Professor at Konigsberg
(1549), a man of great learning and speculative talent, but conceited
and overbearing, created a great commotion by a new doctrine of justi-
fication, which he brought out after the death of Luther.2 He assailed
the forensic conception of justification, and taught instead a medicinal
and creative act, whereby the sinner is made just by an infusion of the
divine nature of Christ, which is our righteousness. This view was de-
nounced as Romanizing, but it is rather mystical. He did not make justi-
fication a gradual process, like the Koman system, but a single and com-
plete act, by which Christ according to his divine nature enters the soul
of man through the door of faith.3 He meant justification by faith
alone without works, but an effective internal justification in the ety-
ologia Osianders, Erfurt, 1552; Jo. WIGAND: De Osiandrismo, Jena, 1583 and 1586;
SoHLiisSELBURG : Catal. If (Bret. Lib. VI. ; PLANCK, Vol. IV. p. 249 ; BAUB: Disqu. in Osian-
dri de justif. doctrinam. Tub. 1831; LEHNERDT: De Osiandri vita et doctr.'Berol. 1835 ;
H. WILKBN : Osianders Leben, Stralsimd, 1844 ; HBBBRLE : Os. Lehre in ihrer fruhsten
Oestalt (Studien w. Kritiken, 1844, p. 386) ; RITSOHL : Rechtfertigungshhre des A. Os. (in
Jahrb.filr D. TheoL 1857, p. 795) ; R. T. GRAU : De Os. doctrina, Marb. 1860 ; GIESELTSR,
Vol. IV. p. 409 ; GASS, Vol. I. p. 61 ; HEPPE, Vol. I p. 81 ; G. FRANK, Vol. I. p. 150 ; J. H. R.
FRANK, Vol. II. p. 1-47 ; DORNER, p. 344. Among Roman Catholic divines, DSLLINOER in
his Reformation,ihreEntwicklung und Wiricungen,Vo\. III. pp. 397-437, gives the best account
of the Osiandric controversy.
1 See K5STLIN : Luther's Theologie, Vol. II. pp. 444 sqq.
3 He thought that c after the death of the lion he could easily dispose of the hares and foxeL.
But the germ of his doctrine was already in his tract, lJSin gut Unterricht und getreuer RathscMag
aus heil. gGttUcher Schrift,' 1524. At the Diet of Augsburg, 1530, he requested Melanch-
thon, in the presence of Brentius and Urban Regius, to introduce into the new confession oi
faith the passage Jer. xxu'L 6, 'The Lord our Righteousness,' which he understood to mean
that Christ dwells in us by faith, and works in us both to will and to do. See Wilkens, p. 37;
Dollinger, p. 398.
3 * Christujs secundum suam veram divinam essentiam in vere credentibus fipbitat,1
§ 45. THE FOK3VT OF CONCORD, 1577. 273
mological sense of the term. He was Protestant in this also, that
he excluded human merit and represented faith which apprehends
Christ, as the gift of God. In connection with this he held peculiar
views on the image of God, which he made to consist in the essen-
tial union of the human nature with the divine nature, and on the
necessity of the incarnation, which in his opinion would have taken
place even without the fall, in order that through Christ's humanity
we might become partakers of the essential righteousness of God.1 He
appealed to Luther, but denounced Melanchthon as a heretic and pest-
ilential man.
Osiander was protected by Duke Albrecht of Prussia, whom he had
converted, but opposed from every quarter by Morlin, Staphylus, Stan-
earns, Melanchthon, Amsdorf, Menius, Flacius, Chemnitz. Between
the two parties stood the Swabian divines Brentius and Binder. The
controversy was carried on with a good deal of misunderstanding, and
with such violence that the Professors in Konigsberg carried fire-arms
into their academic sessions. It was seriously circulated and believed
that the devil wrote Osiander's books, while he enjoyed his meals.
After Osiander's death (1552), his son-in-law, John Funck, chaplain
of the Duke, became the leader of his small party; but he was executed
on the scaffold (1566) as a heretic and disturber of the public peace.
Morlin was recalled from exile and made Bishop of Samland. The
Prussian collection of Confessions (Corpus Doctrines Pruthenicwm, or
JBorussicum, Konigsberg, 1567) condemned the doctrines of Osiander.
In close connection with the Osiandric controversy on justification
was the STANOAEIAN dispute, introduced by Francesco Stancaro (or
Stancarus), an Italian ex-priest, and for a short time Professor in
Konigsberg (d. 1574 in Poland). He asserted, against Osiander and
in agreement *with Peter the Lombard, that Christ was our Mediator
and Redeemer according to his human nature only (since he, being
God himself, could not mediate between God and God).2 He called
his opponents and all the Reformers ignoramuses.3
Another collateral controversy, concerning the obedience of Christ,
1 lPer Tiumanitatem devemt in nos divinitas.'
3 ''Nemopotest esse mediator sui ipsius.' Petrus Lombardus says : * Christus mediator di*
citur secundum humanitatem^ non swundum divinitatem.'
3 WIGJV.ND : De Stancariswo, Lips. 1 ">83 ; SCHLI'SSELBURG, Lib. IX. ; PLANCK, Vol. IV.
p. 449; GiESELEB,Vol.IV.p. 480; G. FRANK, Vol. I. p. 156.
274: THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
was raised, A.D. 1563, by PAKSIMONIUS, or KARG, a Lutheran minister
in Bavaria.1 He derived our redemption entirely from our Lord's
passive obedience, and denied that his active obedience had any vicari-
ous merit, since Christ himself, as man, owed active obedience to God.
He also opposed the doctrine of imputation, and resolved justification
into the idea of remission of sins.
Karg was opposed by Ketzmann in Ansbach, by Heshusius, and the
Wittenberg divines. Left without sympathy, and threatened with depo-
sition and exile, he recanted his theses in 1570, and confessed that
the obedience of Christ, his righteousness, merit, and innocence are
the ground of our justification and our greatest comfort.2
The 'Form of Concord' teaches that Christ as God and man in his
one, whole, and perfect obedience, is our righteousness, and that his
whole obedience unto death is imputed to us.
IV. THE MAJORISTTC CONTROVERSY (1552-1577.)*
It is closely connected with the Synergistic, Osiandric, and Antino-
mian controversies, and refers to the use of good works.
The Reformers derived salvation solely from the merits of Christ
through the medium of faith, as the organ of reception, in accordance
with the Scripture, £ Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be
saved/ But faith was to them a work of God, a living apprehension
of Christ, and the fruitful parent of good works. Luther calls faith a
* lively, busy, mighty thing,' which can no more be separated from love
1 Georg Karg was born 1512, studied at Wittenberg, was ordained by Luther and Me-
lanchthon, became pastor at Oettingen, afterwards at Ansbach, and died 1576. He was a
rigid Lutheran in the Interimistic controversies, but otherwise more a follower of Melanch-
thon.
9 THOMASIUS : Hist, dogmatis de obedientia Christi activa, Erl. 1845-46 ; G. FRANK,
Vol. L p. 158 ; DORNBR, p. 345; BELLINGER, Vol. III. pp. 564-74 (together with the acts
from MS. sources in the Appendix, pp. 15 sqq., the best account). Karg's view was after-
wards defended by the Reformed divines John Piscator of Herborn and John Camero of
Saumur, perhaps also by Ursinus (according to a letter of Tossanus to Piscator). See D61-
linger, Vol. III. p. 573 ; Schweizer : Centraldogmen, Vol. II. p. 16.
* D. G. MAJOR: Opera, Viteb. 1569, 3 vols. ; N. VON AMSDORF: Dass die Propositio:
* Gfute Werke sind zur Seliglceit schadlich, ' eine rechte wahre christliche Propositio sei, durch
die heiligen Paulus und Luther gepredigt, 1559 ; several tracts of FLACIUS, WIGANP, and
Responsa and Letters of MELANCHTHON on this subject from 1553 to 1559, in Corp. Refonn.
Vols. VIII. and IX. ; SOHL^SSELBURG, Lib. VII. ; PLANCK, Vol. IV. p. 4C9 ; DSLLINGER,
Vol. III. p. 493 ; THOMASIUS : Das Bek. der ev. luth. Kirche in der Consequenz seines Prin-
ctp$,p.lOO; HEPPE,VO!. II. p.264; G. FRANK, Vol. L p. 122; FR. H. E. FRANK, Vol. IL
p. 149; HERZOG, Vol. VIII. p. 733; DORNER, p. 339.
§ 45. THE FORM OF CONCORD, 1577. 275
than fire from heat and light.1 Melanchthon, in his later period, laid
greater stress on good works, and taught their necessity as fruits of
faith, but not as a condition of salvation, which is a free, unmerited
gift of God.2
Georg Major (Professor at Wittenberg since 1539, died 1574), a
pupil of Melanchthon, and one of the framers of the Leipzig Interim,
declared during his sojourn at Eisleben (1552) that good works are
necessary to salvation.3 He pronounced the anathema on every one
who taught otherwise, though he were an angel from heaven. He meant,
however, the necessity of good works as a negative condition, not as
a meritorious cause, and he made, moreover, a distinction between sal-
vation and justification.4
This proposition seemed to be inconsistent with Luther's solifidian-
ism, and was all the more obnoxious for its resemblance to a clause in
the Romanizing Leipzig Interim (1548).5
Hence it was violently opposed from every direction. Nicolas von
Amsdorf (1483-1565), appealing to St. Paul and Dr. Luther, con-
1 ?ee his classical description of faith in the Preface to the Epistle to the "Romans (Walch,
Vol. XIV. p. 114, quoted also in the 'Form of Concord, 'p. 626, ed. Miiller) : 'Der Glaube ist
ein gottlich Werk in uns, das uns verwandelt und neu gebiert aus Gott und todtet den alien
Adam, macht uns gnnz andere Menschen . . . und bringet den heiligen Geist mit sich. 0 ! es
ist ein lebendig, geschaftig, thatig, machtig Ding urn den Glauben, dass es unmoglich ist, doss er
nicht ohne Unterlass sollte Gutes wirken; erfragt auch nicht, ob gute Werke zu thun sind, son-
dern ehe man fragt, hat er sie gethan, und ist immer im Thun. Weraber nicht solche Werke
thut, der ist ein glaubloser Mensch. . . . Werke vom Glauben scheiden is so unmSolich als bren-
nen und leuchten vom Feuer mag geschieden werdenS In another place Luther says : ' So wenig
dasFeuer ohne Hitze und Ranch ist, so wenig ist der Glaube ohne Liebe.*
8 Loci theol ed. 1535 (the edition dedicated to King Henry VIII.): 'Obedientia nostra,
hoc est, justitia, bonce conscientice seu operum, qua Deus nobis prcecipit, necessario sequi debet
reconciliationem. . . . Si vis in vitam ingredi, serva mandata (Matt. xix. 17). .. . Justificamur
ut nova et spirituali vita vivamus. . . . Ipsius opus sumus, conditi ad bona opera (Eph. ii. 10).
. . . Acceptatio ad vitam ceternam seu donatio vitce ceternoB conjuncta est cum justificatione9
i. e., cum remissione peccatorum et reconciliatione, guafide contingit. . . . Itaque non datur vita
ceterna propter dignitatem bonorum operum, sed gratis propter Christum. Et tamen bona opera
ita necessaria sunt ad vitam ceternam, quia sequi reconciliationem necessario debent* (Corp.
Reform.Vol. XXI. p. 429).
3 ''Bona opera necessaria esse ad salutem.'
* He found it necessary afterwards to qualify his proposition, especially since Melanchthon,
to his surprise, did not quite approve it. He assigned to good works a necessitas debiti, as
commanded by God, a necessitas conjunctionis, as connected with faith, but no necessitas meriti.
Our whole confidence is in Christ, 'Hominem,' he said, * sola fide essejustum, sed non sola
fide salvum.'
8 Viz., the words, 'Es ist gewissRch wahr, dass die Tugenden Glaube, Liebe,Hoffnung,und
andere in uns sein mussen und zur Seligkeit ndthig seien.1 In Bezel's edition of Melanchthon's
'Bedenken* the words zur Seligkeit are omitted. Dollinger, Vol. III. p. 4 00.
276 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
demned it as ' the worst and most pernicious heresy,5 and boldly advo*
cated even the counter-proposition, that good works are dangerous to
salvation (1559).1 Flacius denounced Major's view as popish, godless,
and most dangerous, because it destroyed the sinner's comfort on the
death-bed and the gallows, made the salvation of children impossible,
confounded the gospel with the law, and weakened the power of
Christ's death.2 Wigaiid objected that the error of the necessity of
good works was already condemned by the Apostles in Jerusalem
(Acts xv.)? that it was the pillar of popery and a mark of Antichrist,
and that it led many dying persons unable to find good works in
themselves, to despair. Justus Menius, Superintendent of Gotha, tried
to mediate by asserting the necessity of good works for the preserva-
tion of faith ; but this was decidedly rejected as indirectly amounting
to the same error. A synod, held at Eisenach in 1556, decided in
seven theses that Major's proposition was true only in abstracto and in
foro legis, but not in foro evangelii, and should be avoided as liable
to be misunderstood in a popish sense. Christ delivered us from the
curse of the law, and faith alone is necessary both for justification and
salvation, which are identical.3 The theses were subscribed by Ams-
dorf, Strigel, Morlin, Hugel, Sto'ssel, and even by Menius (although
the fifth was directed against him). But now there arose a contro-
versy on the admission of the abstract and legal necessity of good
works, which was defended by Flacius, Wigand, and Morlin; opposed
by Amsdorf and Aurifaber as semi-popish. The former view pre-
vailed.
Melanchthon felt that the necessity of good works for salvation
might imply their meritoriousness, and hence proposed to drop the
words for salvation, and to be contented with the assertion that good
works are necessary because God commanded them, and man is bound
to obey his Creator.4 This middle course was adopted by the Witten-
1 l£ona opera perniciosa (noxia) esse [not in themselves, but] ad salutem.' Whoever held
the opposite view was denounced by Amsdorf as a Pelagianer, Mameluk, zweifaltiger Papist
and Verlaugner Christi.
9 See the extracts from Flacius, in Dollinger, Vol. III. pp. 503 sqq.
3 See the theses in Dollinger, Vol. III. p. 511 sq.
4 See his brief Judicium on the Majoristic controversy, 1553, Corp. Reform. Vol. VIII.
p. 1 94, and his more lengthy German letter ad Senatum Northusanum (Nordhausen), Jan. 13,
1555 ; Ibid., pp. 410-4-1 3. *Z>iese Deutung,' he says (p. 412), 'i$t zufliehen : gute Werke sind
VEEDIBNST der Selipkeit; und muss der Glaub und Trostfest allein auf dem Herrn Christo
§ 45. THE FORM OF CONCORD, 1577. 277
berg Professors and by the Diet of Princes at Frankfort (1558), but
was rejected by the strict Lutherans.
Major consented (in 1558) no longer to use his phrase, and revoked
it in his last will (1570), but he was still assailed, and the Professors at
Jena prayed for the conversion of the poor old man (1571) with little
hope of success. Flacius prayed that Christ might crush also this ser-
pent. Heshusius publicly confessed that he had committed a horrible
sin in accepting the Doctor's degree from Major, who was a disgrace
to the theological profession.
The 'Form of Concord' settled the controversy by separating good
works botli from justification and salvation, yet declaring them neces-
sary as effects of justifying faith.1
V. THE ANTINOMIAN CONTROVERSY (1527-1560). a
Protestantism in its joyful enthusiasm for the freedom and all-
sufficiency of the gospel was strongly tempted to antinomianism, but
restrained by its moral force and the holy character of the gospel
itself.3 Luther, in opposition to Romish legalism, put the gospel and
stehen, dass wirgewissUch durch ihn allein, propter eum etper eum, haben Vergebung der Sun-
den, Zurchnung der Gerechtigkeit, heiligen Geist, und Erbschaft der ewigen Seliffkeit. Dieses
Fundament ist gewiss. Esfolget auch eben aus diesem Fundament, dass diese andere Proposi-
tion recht und nothig ist : gute Werke oder neuer Gefiorsam ist nb'thig von wegen gdttlicher, un-
wandelbdrer Ordnung, dass die vemunftige Creatur Gott Gehorsam schuldig ist, und dazu er-
schnffen, undjetzund wiedergeboren ist, dass sie ihm gleichformig werde.1 Melanchthon heard
from an Englishman that this controversy created great astonishment in England, where no
one doubted the necessity of good works to salvation, nor failed to see the difference be-
tween necessity and merit.
1 In accordance with the word of Augustine : c Opera seguuntur justificatmn, non prcecedunt
justificandwn.' Three or four of the framers of the 'Form of Concord* were inclined to
Major's view, and endeavored at first to prevent its condemnation ; but the logic of the Lu-
theran principle triumphed,
3 LUTHER'S Werke, Vol. XX. p. 2014 (ed. Walch) ; WIGAND : De antinomia veteri et nova,
Jen. 1571 ; SCHLUSSELBURG, Lib. IV. ; FSRSTEMANN: Neues Urkundenbuch (Hamburg, 1842),
Vol. I. p. 291; J. G. SCHULZIUS: Historia Antinomorum, Viteb. 1708; PLANCK, Vol. II.
p. 399, Vol. V. 1. 1 ; THOMASIUS, p. 46 ; DOLLINGER, Vol. III. p. 372 ; GIESELER, VoL IV.
p.397; HEPPE,VO!. I. p. 80; GABS, Vol. I. p. 37; G.FRANK, Vol. I. p. 146; FR. H. R. FRANK,
VoL II. pp. 246, 2f>2 ; DORNER, p. 336 ; ELWERT : De Antinomia Agricoloz Islebii, Tur. 1836;
K. J.NITZSCH: Die Gesammterscheinung des Antinomismus, in ih&Studien u. Kritiken, 1846,
Nos. I. and II,
3 Gass says (Vol. I. p. 57): lDie Reformation war selbst Antinomismus, insofern sie mit dem
werkheiligen auch das gesetzlicfie Princip, wenn es die Seligkeit des Menschen bewirken will,
verwarf. Melanchthon hatte Gesetz und Evangelium wie Schreck- und Trostmittel einander
entgegengestel/t und nur auf das letzere die Rechtfertigung gebaut, wahrend er dock unter dem
Gesetz den bleibenden Inko.lt des giHtlichen Willens zusammenfasst.'
278 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
the law as wide apart as 'heaven and earth,' and said, 'Moses is dead.'1
Nevertheless he embodied in his Catechism an excellent exposition of
the'Decalogue before the Creed ; and Melanchthon, as we have already
seen, laid more and more stress on the moral element and good works
in opposition to the abuses of solifidianisrn and carnal security.
The antinomian controversy has two stages. The first touches the
office of the law under the gospel dispensation, and its relation to
repentance ; the second the necessity of good works, which was the
point of dispute between Major and Amsdorf, and has already been
discussed.
John Agricola, of Eisleben, misunderstood Luther, as Marcion, the
antinomian Gnostic, misunderstood St. Paul.2 He first uttered anti-
nomian principles in 1527, in opposition to Melanchthon, who in his
Articles of Visitation urged the preaching of the law unto repent-
ance.3 He was appeased in a conference with the Keformers at Tor-
gau (December, 1527). But when Professor at Wittenberg, he re-
newed the controversy in 1537, in some arrogant theses, and was de-
feated by Luther in six public disputations (1538 and 1540). He made
a severe attack on Luther, which involved him in a lawsuit, but he
removed to Berlin, and sent from there a recantation, Dec. 6, 1540.
Long afterwards (1562) he reasserted his views in a published sermon
on Luke vii. 37. He was neither clear nor consistent.
Agricola taught with some truth that genuine repentance and re-
1 Many of his utterances, as quoted by Dollinger, Vol. III. pp. 45 sqq., sound decidedly
antinomian, but must be understood cum gra.no satis, and in connection with his whole teach-
ing. Some of the most objectionable are from his 'Table Talk,' as when he calls Moses *the
master of all hangmen' and 'the worst of heretics.'
9 Agricola (Schnitter, Kornschneider; Luther called him Grickl) was born at Eisleben, 1492
(hence Magister Islebius), and studied at Wittenberg, where he boarded with Luther. He
was a popular preacher at Eisleben, and became Professor of Theology at Wittenberg, 1586,
and chaplain of Elector Joachim II. at Berlin, 1 540. In 1 548 he took a leading part in the
Augsburg Interim, and denied the essential principles of Protestantism, but protested afterwards
from the pulpit against the necessity of good works (1558). He died at Berlin, 1566. Lu-
ther was more vexed by him, as he said, than by any pope ; he charged him with excessive
vanity and ambition, and declared him unfit to teach, and fit only for the profession of a
jester (Briefe, Vol. V. p. 321). He refused to see him in 1545, and said, ' Grickl wird in alle,
Ewigkeit Grifikl bleiben.' Bretschneider and Gieseler suppose that Melanchthon incurred
Agricola's displeasure by not helping him to a theological chair in Wittenberg. He must
have had, however, considerable administrative capacity. Dollinger charges the Reformers
with misrepresenting him and his doctrine.
3 'Pradicatio legis ad painitentiam.' Chursachsische Visitations-Artikel, 1527 and 1528,
Latin and German, ed. by Strobel, 1777.
S 45. THE FORM OP CONCORD, 1577. 279
mission of sin could only be secured under the gospel by the contem-
plation of Christ's love. In this Luther (and afterwards Calvin) agreed
with him. But he went much further. The law in his opinion was su-
perseded by the gospel, and has nothing to do with repentance and con*
version. It works only wrath and death ; it leads to unbelief and de-
spair, not to the gospel. He thought the gospel was all-sufficient both
for the office of terror and the office of comfort. Luther, on the con-
trary, maintained, in his disputations, that true repentance consists of
two things — knowledge and sorrow of sin, and resolution to lead a better
life. The first is produced by the law, the second by the gospel. The
law alone would lead to despair and hatred of God ; hence the gospel
is added to appease and encourage the terrified conscience. The law
can not justify, but must nevertheless be taught, that by it the impious
may be led to a knowledge of their sin and be humbled, and that the
pious may be admonished to crucify their flesh with its sinful lustSj
and to guard against security.
The 'Form of Concord' teaches a threefold use of the law: (a) A
political or civil use in maintaining outward discipline and order;
(5) An elenehtic or pedagogic use in leading men to a knowledge of sin
and the need of redemption ; (<?) A didactic or normative use in regu-
lating the life of the regenerate. The Old and New Testaments are
not exclusively related as law and gospel, but the Old contains gospel,
and the New is law and gospel complete.
VI. THE ORYPTO-CALVINISTIO OK EUCHAJ&ISTIC OONTKOVERSY (1549-1574:). l
The eucharistic controversy between Luther and Zwingli, although
it alienated the German and Swiss branches of the Reformation, did
1 "WESTFHAL : Farrago confusanearum et inter se dissidentium opinionum de Ccena Domini
ex Sacramentariorum libris congesta, Magdeb. 1552 (chiefly against Calvin, Bullinger, Peter
Martyr, and John a Lasco) ; Recta Fides de Gfe.no, Domini ex verbis Ap. Pauli et Evangelista-
rum demonstrata, 1553 ; a tract on Augustine's view of the eucharist, 155.5 ; another on Melanch-
thon's view, 1557 ; then Justa Defensio against John a Lasco ; and, finally, Apologia contra
corruptelas et calummas Johannis Calvini, 1558. CALVIN : Defensio sance et orthodoxce doc-
trines de sacramentis, Gen. and Tiguri, 1555 ; Secunda Defensio plance et orthod. de sacram.
fidei contra Joach. Westphali calumnias, 1556 ; Ultima Admonitio ad Joach. Westphalum, 1557;
Dilucida Explicatio sance doctr. de vera participatione carnis et sanguinis Christi in sacra
Ccena, against Heshusius, 1 561 . (All these tracts of Calvin in his Opera, VoL IX. ed.Baum,
Cnnitz, and Keuss, Brunsv. 1870,) Minor eucharistic tracts on the Lutheran side hy BRENZ,
SCHNEPF, ALBER, TIMANN, HESHUSIUS ; on the Calvinistic side by BULLINGER, PETER MAR-
TYR, BEZA, and HARDENBERG. WIGAND : De Sacramentariismo, Lips. 1584 ; De Ubiquitate,
280 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
not destroy all intercourse, nor discourage new attempts at reconcilia>
tion. Calvin's theory, which, took a middle course, retaining, on the
basis of Zwingli's exegesis, the religious substance of Luther's faith,
and giving it a more intellectual and spiritual form, triumphed in
Switzerland, gained much favor in Germany, and opened a fair pros-
pect for union. But the controversy of Westphal against Calvin, and
the subsequent overthrow of Melanchthonianism, completed and con-
solidated the separation of the two Confessions.
Melanchthon's later view of the Lord's Supper, which essentially
agreed with that of Calvin, was for a number of years entertained by
the majority of Lutheran divines even at Wittenberg and Leipzig, and
at the court of the Elector of Saxony. It was also in various ways
officially recognized with the Augsburg Confession of 1540, which was
long regarded as an improved rather than an altered edition.
But the Princes and the people held fast to the heroic name of Lu-
ther against any rival authority, and when the alternative was pre-
sented to choose between him and Melanchthon or Calvin, the issue
could not be doubtful. Besides, the old traditional view of the mys-
terious power and magical efficacy of the sacraments had a firm hold
upon the minds and hearts of German Christians, as it has to this day.
Joachim Westphal, a rigid Lutheran minister at Hamburg, renewed,
in 1552, the sacramental war in several tracts against the * Zurich Con-
sensus' (issued 1549), and against Calvin and Peter Martyr; aiming
indirectly against the Philippists, and treating all as sacramentarians
and heretics who denied the corporeal presence, the oral manducation,
and the literal eating of Christ's body even by unbelievers. He made
no distinction between Calvin and Zwingli, spoke of their godless per-
version of the Scriptures, and even their satanic blasphemies. About
the same time John £ Lasco, a Polish nobleman and minister of a
foreign Eeformed congregation in London, and one hundred and sev-
enty-five Protestants, who were driven from England under the bloody
Begiora.1588; SOHL^SSELBURG, Lib. III. ; PLANCK, Vol. V. II. 1 ; G-ALLE, p. 436 ; EBRARD:
Das Dogma vom heil. Abendmahl, Vol. II. pp. 525-744 ; GIESELER, Vol. IV. pp. 430, 454 ;
HBPPE, Vol. II. p. 384 ; ST^HELIN : Calvin, Vol. II. pp. 1 1 2, 198 ; SCHMIDT : Melanchthon,
pp. 580, 639; G. FRANK, Vol. I. pp. 132, 164; FR. H.R. FRANK, Vol. III. pp. 1-164; MSNCKE-
BERG: Joach. Westphal und Joh. Calvin, 1865 ; DoRNER,p.400; also Art. Kryptocalvinismus
in Herzog, Vol. VIII. p. 122 ; and the Prolegomena to the ninth volume of the new edition of
Calvin's Opera (in Corp. Reform.^.
§ 45. THE FORM OF CONCORD, 1577. 281
Mary (1553), sought and were refused in cold winter a temporary ref-
uge in Denmark, Kostoek, Lubeck, and Hamburg (though they found
it at last in East Friesland). Westphal denounced them as martyrs of
the devil, enraged the people against them, and gloried in this cruelty
as an act of faith.1
This intolerance roused the Swiss, who had kept silence for some
time, to a defense of their doctrine. Calvin took up his sharp and
racy pen, indignantly rebuking c the no less rude and barbarous than
sacrilegious insults' to persecuted members of Christ, and triumphant-
ly vindicating, against misrepresentations and objections, his doctrine
of the spiritual real presence of Christ, and the sealing communication
of the life-giving virtue of his body in heaven to the believer through
the power of the Holy Ghost.2 He claimed to agree with the Augs-
burg Confession as understood and explained by its author, and ap-
pealed to him. Melanchthon, for reasons of prudence and timidity,
declined to take an active part in the strife 'on bread-worship,' but
never concealed his essential agreement with him.3 His enemies re-
published his former views. His followers were now stigmatized as
' Crypto-Calvinists.5
1 See Utenhoven's Simplex et fidelis narratio, etc.,Bas. 1560, and the extracts from it by
Salig, Vol. II. pp. 1090 sqq., and Ebrard, Vol. II. pp. 536 sqq. Monckeberg attempts to apol-
ogize for Westphal, but without effect. Compare the remarks of Dorner, p. 401.
2 'Fatemur,' he says in his First Defense, * Christum, quod panis et vini symbolis figwrat,
vere prcestare, ut animas nostras carnis sum esu et sanguinis potione alat. . . . Hujus rei nan
falhcem oculis proponi Jiguram dicimus, sed pignus nobis porrigi, cui res ipsa et veritas con-
juncta est : quod scilicet Christi came et sanguine animoe nostrce pascantur' (in the new edi-
tion of his Opera, Vol. IX. p. 30). In the Second Defense : 6 Christum corpore absentem doceo
nihilominus non tantum divina sua virtute, quce. ubique diffusa est, nobis adesse, sed etiam facer*
ut nobis vivifica sit sua caro (Vol. IX. p. 76). . . . Ccenam plus centies did sacrum esse vin-
culum nostroB cum Christo unitatis (p. 77). . . . Spiritus sui virtute Christus locorum distan-
tiam superat ad vitam nobis e sua carne inspirandam' (p. 77). . . . And in his Last Admoni-
tion : 'jETcec nostrce doctrines summa est, carnem Christi panem esse vivificum, quia dumfide
in earn coalescimus, vere animas nostras alit et pascit. Hoc nonnisi spiritualiter fieri docemus,
quia hujus sacrce unitatis vinculum arcana est et incomprehensibilis Spiritus Sancti virtus'
(Vol. IX. p. 162).
3 He wrote to Calvin, Oct. 14, 1554 (Corp. Reform. Vol. VIII. p. 362) : c Quod in proximis
literis hortaris, ut reprimatn ineruditos clamores illorum, qui renovant certamen irtpi apro\a-
rpdag, scito, quosdam prcecipue odio mei earn disputationem mover e, ut habeant phusibilem caw-
sam ad me opprimendum.' To Hardenberg, in Bremen, May 9, 1557 : ' Crescit, ut vides, non
modo certamen, sed etiam rabies in scriptoribus, qui aproXarpaav stabiliunt.1 And to Mord-
eisen, Nov. 15, 1557 (Corp. jRe/bra. Vol. IX. p. 374) : lSi mihi concedatis, ut in alio loco vi-
vam, respondebo illis indoctis sycophantis et vere et graviter, et dicam utilia ecclesice.' He
gave, however, his views pretty clearly and dispassionately shortly before his death in his vota
on the Breslau and Heidelberg troubles (1559 and 1560>
282 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
The controversy gradually spread over all Germany, and was con-
ducted with an incredible amount of bigotry and superstition.
In Bremen, John Timann fought for the real presence, and insisted
upon the ubiquity of Christ's body as a settled dogma (1555), while
Albert Hardenberg opposed it, and was banished (1560) ; but a reaction
took place afterwards in favor of the Reformed Confession.
In Heidelberg, Tilemann Heshusius,1 General Superintendent since
1558, attacked the Melanchthonian Klebitz openly at the altar by try-
ing to wrest from him the cup. The Elector Frederick III. dismissed
both (1559), ordered the preparation of the Heidelberg Catechism, and
introduced the Eeformed Confession in the Palatinate (1563),
In Wiirtemberg the ubiquity doctrine triumphed (at a synod in
Stuttgart, 1559), chiefly through the influence of Brentius, who had
formerly agreed with Melanchthon, but now feared that * the devil in-
tended through Calvinism to smuggle heathenism, Talmudism, and
Mohammedanism into the Church.'2 A colloquy at Maulbronn (1564)
between the Wiirtemberg and the Palatinate divines on ubiquity led to
no result.
Ducal Saxony, under the lead of the Flacianist Professors of Jena,
was violently arrayed against Electoral Saxony with the Crypto-Cal-
vinist faculty at Wittenberg. The Elector Augustus, strongly preju-
diced against Flacianism, deceived by the Consensus Dresdensis (1571),
and controlled by his physician, Caspar Peucer, the active and influen-
tial lay-leader of the Crypto-Calvinists, unwittingly maintained for
some time Calvinism under the disguise of sound Lutheranism. When
he became Eegent of the Thuringian Principalities (1573), he banished
Heshusius and Wigand from Jena, and all the Flacianists of that dis-
trict.
Thus Philippism triumphed in all Saxony, but it was only for a
short season.
Elector Augustus was an enthusiastic admirer of Luther, and would
not tolerate a drop of Calvinistic blood in his veins. When he found
out the deceptive policy of the Crypto-Calvinists, he suppressed them
1 His German name was Hesshusen. He was one of the most pugnacious divines of h*s
age ; born 1527 at Nieder-Wesel, died 1588 at Helmstadt. See Leuckfeld's biography,
toria Heshusiana (1716), and Henke, in Herzog, Vol. VI. p. 49.
2 In his last book against Bullinger (1564). See Hartmann, Brenz, p. 252.
§ 45. THE FORM OF CONCORD, 1577. 283
by force, 1574.1 The leaders were deposed, imprisoned, and exiled,
among them four theological Professors at Wittenberg.2 Peucer was
confined in prison for twelve years, while his children were wandering
about in misery.3 Thanks were offered in all the churches of Saxony
for the triumph of genuine Lutheranism. A memorial coin exhibits
the Elector with the sword in one hand, and a balance in the other :
one scale bearing the child Jesus ; the other, high up, the four Witten-
berg Philippists with the devil, and the title < reason.'
After the death of Augustus (1586), Calvinism again raised its head
under Christian I. and the lead of Chancellor Nicolas Orel], but after
another change of ruler (1591) it was finally overthrown : the protest
ing Professors in Wittenberg and Leipzig were deposed and exiled ;
the leading ministers at Dresden (Salmuth and Pierius) were im-
prisoned ; Crell, who had offended the nobility, after suffering for ten
years in prison, was, without an investigation, beheaded as a traitor to
his country (Oct. 9, 1601), solemnly protesting his innocence, but for-
giving his enemies.4 Since that time the name of a Calvinist became
more hateful in Saxony than that of a Jew or a Mohammedan.
1 He was undeceived by a new deception. The crisis was brought about by the discovery
of a confidential correspondence with the Reformed in the Palatinate, and especially by the
appearance in Leipzig of the anonymous Exegesis perspicua controversies de Ccena Domini,
1 574 (newly edited by Schefter, Marburg, 1 853), which openly rejected the mnndwatio oralis,
and defended Calvin's view of the eucharist (though without naming him), while the Con-
sensus Dresdensis (1571) had concealed it under Lutheran phraseology. This work was gen-
erally attributed to Peucer and the Wittenberg Professors, in spite of their steadfast denial,
but it was the product of a Silesian physician, Joachim Cureus. See the proof in Heppe. Vol.
II. pp. 468 sqq.
8 Cruciger, Moller, Wiedebram, and Pezel (whom the Lutherans called Beelzebub) refused
to recant. The first went to Hesse, the second to Hamburg, the other two to Nassau. The
old and weak Major yielded to the condemnation of Melanchthon's view. Several other
Wittenberg Professors were likewise deposed.
3 Peucer was released in 1586, at the intercession of the beautiful Princess Agnes, Hedwig
of Anhalt, and became physician of the Prince of Dessau, where he died, 1602. He wrote
the history of his prison life, Historia carcerum et liberations divines, ed. by Pezel, Tig.
1605. On his theory of the real presence, see Galle, pp. 460 sqq. He rejected the Lutheran
view much more strongly than his father-in-law, Melanchthon, and thought it had no more
foundation in the Bible than the popish transubstantiation. Comp. HENKE : Gasp. Peucer
und NIC. Crell, Marburg, 1865.
4 He was charged with intermeddling in matters of religion, and advising a dangerous
treaty with the Reformed Henry IV. of France against Austria. The suit was referred to
an Austrian court of appeals at Prague, and decided in the political interest of Austria with
a violation of all justice. His confession of guilt before his heavenly Judge was distorted by
his fanatical opponents into a confession of guilt before his human judges. It is often stated
that he was not beheaded for religion ('non ob reKgionem, sed ob perjldiam multiplicem,' a*
284 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
It is characteristic of the spirit of the age and the doctrine of con-
substantiation that they gave rise to all sorts of idle, curious, and un-
wittingly irreverent speculations about the possible effect of the con-
secrated elements upon things for which they never were intended.
The schoolmen of the Middle Ages, in the interest of transubstan-
tiation, seriously disputed the question whether the eating of the eu-
charistic bread would kill or sanctify a mouse, or (as the wisest
thought) have no effect at all, since the mouse did not receive it sac-
ramentaliter, but only accidentaliter. Orthodox Lutherans of the
sixteenth century went even further. Brentius decidedly favored the
opinion that the consecrated bread, if eaten by a mouse, was fully as
much the body of Christ as Christ was the Son of God in the moth-
er's womb and on the back of an ass. The sacrament, he admitted,
was not intended for animals, but neither was it intended for unbe-
lievers, who nevertheless received the very body and blood of Christ.
An eccentric minister in Rostock required the communicants to be
shaved to prevent profanation. Licking the blood of Christ from the
beard was supposed to be punished with instant death or a monstrous
growth of the beard. Sarcerius caused the earth on which a drop of
Christ's blood fell, instantly to be dug up and burned. At Hildesheim
it was customary to cut off the beard or the piece of a garment which
was profaned by a drop of wine ; and the Superintendent, Kongius,
was expelled from the city, simply because he had taken up from the
earth a wafer and given it to a communicant, without first kneeling
before it, kissing, and reconsecrating it, as his colleagues thought he
should have done. The Lutherans in Ansbach disputed about the
question whether the body of Christ were actually swallowed, like other
food, and digested in the stomach. When the Eev. John Musculus, in
Frankfort-on-the-Oder, inadvertently spilled a little wine at the corn-
Hutter says, Concordia concors, pp. 448 and 1258). But his Calvinism, or rather his Melanch-
thonianism (for he never read a line of Calvin), was the only crime which could be proved
against him ; he always acted under the direction and command of the Elector, and he had
accepted the chancellorship with a clear confession of his views, and the assurance of his
Prince that he should be protected in it, and never be troubled with subscribing to the ' Form
of Concord. ' As judge, he was admitted, even by his enemies, to have been impartial and just to
the poor as well as the rich. Comp. HASSE : Ueber den CreWschen Process, in Niedner's Zdt-
schrift fur hist. TheoL 1848, No. 2 ; VOGT in Herzog, Vol. III. p. 183 ; KICHARD : Dr. Nic.
Krell. Dresden, 1859 ; G. FRANK, Vol. I. pp. 296 sqq.; HBNKB: C. Peucer und N. Crell,
Marburg, 1865,
§ 45. THE FORM OF CONCORD, 1577. 285
munion, he was summoned before a Synod, and Elector John Joachim
of Brandenburg declared that deposition, prison, and exile were too
mild a punishment for such a crime, and that the offender, who had
not spared the blood of Christ, must suffer bloody punishment, and
have two or three fingers cut off.1
There was also a considerable dispute among Lutheran divines about
the precise time and duration of the corporeal presence. John Saliger
(Beatus) of Liibeck and his friend Fredeland (followers of Flacius, and
of his doctrine on original sin) maintained that the bread becomes
the body of Christ immediately after the consecration and before the
use (ante usum), and called those who denied it sacramentarians ; while
they in turn were charged with the Eomish error of transubstantia-
tion. Deposed at Liibeck, Saliger renewed the controversy from
the pulpit at Eostock (1568). Ohytrseus decided that this was a ques-
tion of idle curiosity rather than piety, and that it was sufficient to
attach the blessing of the sacrament to the transaction, without time-
splitting distinctions (1569). The usual Lutheran doctrine confines
the union of the bread with the body to the time of the use, and hence
the term consubstantiation was rejected, if thereby be understood a
durdbilis inolusioy or permanent conjunction of the sacramental bread
and body of Christ.2
Vn, THE OHEISTOLOaiOAL OB TTBIQUITARIAN COOTBOVERSY.3
The Lutheran view of the Lord's Supper implies the ubiquity, i. e.,
the illocal omnipresence, or at all events the multipresence of Christ's
body. And this again requires for its support the theory of the com-
municatio idiomatum, or the communication of the attributes of the
two natures of Christ, whereby his human nature becomes a partaker
1 Such details are recorded by SALIG, Vol. III. p. 462 ; HABTMANN and JIGER: Brenz,
Vol. II. p. 371 ; GALLE : Melanchthon, p. 449 sq. ; EBRARD : Abendmatt, Vol. II. pp. 592,
694; DROYSEN: Geschichte der Preuss. Politik, Vol. IL p. 261 ; SUDHOF: Olevianus und Ur-
y. 239; G. FRANK, Vol. I. p. 164.
J. WIGGERS : Der Saliger sche AbendmMsstreit, in Niedner's Zeitschrift fur hist. Theol
1848, No. 4, p. 613.
3 DORNER : Entwicklungsgeschichte derLehre von der Person Chrfeti, 2d ed. Vol. II. pp. 665
sqq. ; HBPPE: Gesch. des D.Prot.Vol. IL pp.75 sqq. ; G. E. STEITZ : Art. Ubiguitat, in Herzog's
JEncykL Vol. XVI. pp. 558-616, with an addition by Herzog, Vol. XXI. p. 383 ; GIESEUSR,
VoL IV. pp. 452, 462 ; G. PRANK, Vol. I. p. 161 ; FR. H. E. FRANK, Vol. III. pp. 1 65-396.
Comp. also the literature on the eucharistic controversy, p. 279.
286 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
of the omnipresence of his divine nature. A considerable amount
of interesting speculation was spent on this subject in the sixteenth
century.
All Christians believe in the real and abiding omnipresence of
Christ's divine nature, and of Christ's person (which resides in the
divine nature or the pre-existing Logos), according to Matt, xxviii. 20",
xviii. 20. But the omnipresence of his human nature was no article
of any creed before the Reformation, and was only held by a few
fathers and schoolmen of questionable orthodoxy, as a speculative
opinion.1 The prevailing doctrine was that Christ's glorified body,
though no more grossly material and sensuous, and not exactly de-
finable in its nature, was still a body, seated on a throne of majesty in
heaven, to which it visibly ascended, and from which it will in like
manner return to judge the quick and the dead. This was the view
even of Gregory Nazianzen and John of Damascus, who otherwise
approach very nearly the Lutheran dogma of the communicatio idio-
?natum (the genus majestaticum). The mediaeval scholastics ascribed
omnipresence only to the divine nature and the person of Christ, uni-
jpresence to his human nature in heaven, multipresence to his body in
the sacrament; but they derived the eucharistic multipresence from
the miracle of transubstantiation, and not from an inherent specific
quality of the body. Even "William Occam (who was inclined to con-
substantiation rather than transubstantiation, and had considerable in-
fluence upon Luther) ventured only upon the paradox of the hypothet-
ical possibility of an absolute ubiquity.
Luther first clearly taught the absolute ubiquity of Christ's body, as
a dogmatic support of the real presence in the eucharist.2 He based
1 Origen first taught the ubiquity of the body of Christ, in connection with his docetistic
idealism, but without any regard to the eucharist, and was followed by Gregory of Nyssa
( Orat. 40, and Adv. Apollinar. c. 59). They held that Christ's body after the resurrection was
so spiritualized and deified as to lay aside all limitations of nature, and to be in all parts of
the world as well as in heaven. See Gieseler's Oommentatio qua dementis Alex, et Origenis
doctrince de corpore Christi exponuntur, Gott. 1837, and Neander's £ogmengeschichte,'VQl. I.
pp. 217, 334. Cyril of Alexandria held a similar view (Christ's body is * every where/ vav-
raxoiJ), but in connection with an almost monophysitic Christology. Scotus Erigena revived
Origen's ubiquity, gave it a pantheistic turn, and made it subservient to his view of the eii-
charistic presence, which he regarded merely as a symbol of the every where present Christ.
Neander, Vol. II. p. 43.
•s On Luther's Christology and ubiquity doctrine, see HBPPB (Eef.) : Dogmatik. des D. Prot-
est, im leten. Jahrh.Vol II. pp. 93 sqq,, and KO'STLIN (Luth.) : Luther's Theol Vol. II. pp. 118
§ 45. THE FORM OF CONCORD, 1577. 287
it exegetically on Eph. I 23 (< which is his body, the fullness of him
that filleth all in all') and John iii. 13 ('the Son of man who is in
heaven'), and derived it directly from the personal union of the di-
vine and human natures in Christ (not, as his followers, from the
communication of the attributes). He adopted the scholastic distinc-
tion of three kinds of presence: 1. Local or circumscriptive (material
and confined — as water is in the cup) ; 2. Definitive (local, without lo-
cal inclusion or measurable quantity — as the soul is in the body, Christ's
body in the bread, or when it passed through the closed door) ; 3. Be-
pletive (supernatural, divine omnipresence). He ascribed all these to
Christ as man, so that in one and the same moment, when he instituted
the holy communion, he was circumscriptive at the table, definitive in
the bread and wine, and repletive in heaven, i. e., every where.1 Where
God is, there is Christ's humanity, and where Christ's humanity is, there
is inseparably joined to it the whole Deity. In connection with, this,
Luther consistently denied the literal meaning of Christ's ascension to
heaven, and understood the right hand of God, at which he sits, to
be only a figurative term for the omnipresent power of God (Matt,
xxviii. 18).2 Here he resorted to a mode of interpretation which he so
strongly condemned in Zwingli when applied to the word is.
153, 167, 172, 512. Kostlin, without adopting Luther's views of ubiquity, finds in them
* grossartige, tiefe, geist- und lebensvolle Anschauungen vom gottlichen Sein und Leben1 (Vol.
II. p. 15-4).
1 In his Grosse Bekenntniss vomAbendmahl, published' 1528 (in Walch's ed. Vol. XX. ; in the
Erlangen ed. Vol. XXX.), he says : 'IZann Christus1 Leib uber Tisch sitzen und dennoch im
JBrot sein, so kann er auch im Himmel und wo er will sein und dennoch im Brot sein; es ist
kein Unterschiedfern oder nah bei dem Tische sein, dazu dass er zugleich im Brot sei. . , . E&
sollte mir ein schlechter Christus bleiben, der nicht mehr, denn an einetn einzelnen Orte &ugleich
eine gottliche und menschliche Person ware, und an alien anderen Orten musste er alhin ein
blosser abgesonderter Gott und gSttliche Person sein ohne Menschseit. Nein, GeseHe, wo du
mir Gott hinsetzest, da must du mir die Menschheit mit hinsetzen. Die lassen sich nicht sondern
und von einander trennen; es ist Eine Person worden und scheidet die Menschseit nicht so
von sich, wie Meister Hans seinen Rock auszieht und von sich legt, wenn er schlafen geht.
Denn, dass ich den Einfaltigen ein grob Gleichniss gebe, die A/en&chheit ist nether vereinigt mit
Gott, denn unsere Haut mit unserm Fleische,ja naher denn Leib und Seele.'
2 He ridicules the popular conception of heaven and the throne of God as childish: 'Die
Rechte Gottes,1 he says, 1. c., 'ist nicht ein sonderlicher Ort, da ein Leib solle oder moge sein, nicht
ein Gaukelhimmel, wie man ihn den Kindern pflegt vorzubiUen, darin ein gulden Stuhlstehe und
Christus neben dem Vater sitze in einer Chorkappen und gulden Krone. . . . Die Rechte Gotten
ist an alien JEnden, so ist $ie gewisslich auch im Brot und Wein uber Tische. . . . Wo nun die
Rechte Gottes ist, da muss Christi Leib und Blut auch sein ; denn die Rechte Gottes ist nicht zu
theilen in viele Stucke, sondern ein einiges einfiiltigeR Wesen.' If this prove any thing, it
proves the absolute omnipresence of Christ's body. And so Brentius taught.
288 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
It is very plain that such an absolute omnipresence of the body
proves much more than Luther intended or needed for his eucharistic
theory ; hence he made no further use of it in his later writings, and
rested the real presence at last, as he did at first, exclusively on the
literal (or rather synecdochical) interpretation of the words, ' This is my
body.' His earlier Christology was much more natural, and left room
for a real development of Christ's humanity.
Melanchthon, in his later period, decidedly opposed the ubiquity
of Christ's body, and the introduction of ' scholastic disputations' on
this subject into the doctrine of the eucharist. He wished to know
only of a personal presence of Christ, which does not necessarily in-
volve bodily presence.1 He also rejected the theory of the communi-
catio idiomatum in a real or physical sense, because it leads to a con-
fusion of natures, and admitted with Calvin only a dialectic or verbal
communication.2 Luther's Christology leaned to the Eatychian con-
fusion, Melanchthon's to the Nestorian separation of the two natures.
The renewal of the eucharistic controversy by Westphal led to a
fuller discussion of ubiquity. The orthodox Lutherans insisted upon
ubiquity as a necessary result of the real communication of the prop-
erties of the two natures in Christ ; while the Philippists and Calvin-
ists rejected it as inconsistent with the nature of a body, with the real-
ness of Christ's ascension, and with the general principle that the infi-
nite can not be comprehended or shut up in the finite.3
THE COLLOQUY AT MAULBEONN. — These conflicting Christologies met
face to face at a Colloquy in the cloister of Maulbronn, in the Duchy
of Wiirtemberg, April 10-15, 1564.4 It was arranged by Duke Chris-
1 Z>e inhabitatione Dei in Sanctis ad Osiandrum, 1551 (Consil Lat. Vol. II. p. 156): c Tota
antiquitas declarans hanc propositionem : Ohristus est ubique, sic declarat: Christus est ubique
PERSONA LITER. Et verissimum est) Filium Dei, Deum et hominem habitare in sanctis. Sed
antiquitas hanc propositionem rejicit : Christus CORPORALITER est ubique. Quia natura qu<&
libet retinet sua tfow/zara. Unde Augustinus et alii dicunt': Christi corpus est in certo loco.
. . . Cavendum est, ne ita astruamus divinitatem hominis Christy ut veritatem corporis aufera-
mus.1 In a new edition of his lectures on the Colossians (1556 and 1659), he maintains the-
literal meaning of the ascension of Christ, si. e., in locum ccekstem. . . . Ascensiofuit visibilis
et corporalis, et scepe ita scripsit tota antiquitas, Christum corporali locatione in aliquo loco esse9
ubicungue vult. Corpus localiter alicubi est secundum verum corporis modum, ut Augustinus
inquit. ' See Galle, p. 448.
2 See on his Christology chiefly Heppe, Vol. II. pp. 99 sqq.
3 lFinitum non capax est infinitiS
* Both parties published an account— the Lutherans at Frankfort-on-the-Main, the Re-
§ 45. THE FORM OF CONCORD, 1577. 289
topher of Wiirtemberg and Elector Frederick III. o£ the Palatinate.
Olevianus, Ursinus (the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism), and
Boquin defended the Reformed, the Swabian divines, Andreas, Brenz,
Schnepf, Bidenbach, and Lucas Osiander the Lutheran view. Five
days were devoted to the discussion of the subject of ubiquity, and
one day to the interpretation of the words, * This is my body.' The
Lutherans regarded ubiquity as the main pillar of their view of the
eucharistic. presence. Andrese proposed three points for the debate —
the incarnation, the ascension, and the right hand of God.
The Lutheran reasoning was chiefly dogmatic : The incarnation is
the assumption of humanity into the possession of the divine fullness
with all its attributes, and the right hand of God means his almighty
and omnipresent power ; from these premises the absolute ubiquity of
Christ's body necessarily follows.1
The Eeformed based their argument chiefly on those Scripture pas-
sages which imply Christ's presence in a particular place, and his ab-
sence from other places, as when he says, *I leave the world ;' * I go to
prepare a place for you. ... I will come again ;' * I have not yet as-
cended to my Father;' or when the angels say, 'He is not here/ c Jesus
is taken up from you into heaven,' etc. (John xiv. 2-4, 28 ; xvi. 3, 7, 16 ;
xx. 17; Acts i. 11; iii. 21).2 They urged the difference between the
divine and human, and between the state of humiliation and the state
of exaltation. In the appeal to the fathers and the Creed of Chalcedon
they had also decidedly the advantage. Nevertheless, the Colloquy
had no other effect than to confirm the two parties in their opinions.3
formed at Heidelberg. The latter is more full, and bears the title: Protocollum, h. e.Acta
Colloquii inter Pa latinos et Wirtebergicos Theofogos de Ubiquitate sive OwniprcBsentia corpo-
ris Christl . , . A. 1 564 Maulbrunni habiti (Heidelb. 1 566). See a full resume of the Colloquy
in EBRAKD : Alendmahl, Vol. II. pp. 666-685 ; SUDHOFF : Olevian und Ursin, pp. 260-290 ; in
HARTMANN : JoL Brens, pp. 253-256, and in the larger work of HARTMANN and JlaKR on
Brew*, 1840-42, Vol. II.
1 Andrese asserted that Christ's body, when in Mary's womb, was omnipresent as to pos-
session (possession.*), though not as to manifestation (nonpatefactione). Sudhoff, p. 279. This
is the Tubingen doctrine of the Kpv-^is. See below.
2 The same Lutherans, who so strenuously insisted on the literal interpretation of the 2<m,
outdid the Reformed in the figurative interpretation of aU these passages, and explained the
ascension and heaven itself out of the Bible.
3 Ebrard says (Vol.11, p. 685): lSo endete das Maulbronner Gesprach mit einer vollstan<h'-
gen Niederlage der Lutheraner.' Sndhoff (p. 290): lEs kann von niemandem in Abrede
gestellf werden, da$$ die Pfalzer ak Sieaer aus diesem Streite hervorpeganpen,' and he pu]t>-
290 THE CREEDS OF CHBISTENDOM.
THE CONSENSUS DRESDENSIS. — The Wittenberg and Leipzig Profess-
ors and other Philippists in Saxony openly rejected ubiquity in the
Consensus Dresdensis (October, 1571), which satisfied even the Elector
Augustus. This document teaches that the human nature of Christ
was after the resurrection glorified and transfigured, but not deified,
and still remains human nature with its essential properties, flesh of
our flesh ; that the ascension of Christ must be understood literally, and
not as a mere spectacle ; that Christ's sitting at the right hand means
the elevation of both natures to the priestly and kingly office ; that the
sacramental presence of the body of Christ must be something special
and altogether distinct from omnipresence.1
ABSOLUTE AND EELATIVE UBIQUITY. BBENZ AND CHEMNITZ. — There
was a very material difference among the advocates of ubiquity them-
selves as to its nature and extent, viz. : whether it were absolute, or rela-
tive, that is to say, an omnipresence in the strict sense of the term, or
merely a mwtopresence depending on the will of Christ (hence also
called voliprcesentia, or, by combination, multivoliprcesentid). The
Swabians, under the lead of Brenz and Andreas, held the former ; the
Saxon divines, under the lead of Chemnitz, the latter view.
John Brenz, or Brentius (1499-1570), the Reformer of the Duchy
of Wiirtemberg, and after Melanchthon's death the most prominent
German divine, developed, since 1559, with considerable speculative
talent, a peculiar Christology.2 It rests on the Chalcedonian distinc-
lishes several manuscript letters giving the impressions of the Colloquy on those present.
The Swabians returned discontented, but without change of conviction. Dorner, although
a Lutheran, and a Swabian by descent, gives the Reformed Christology in many respects the
preference before the Lutheran, and says (Vol. II. p. 724): 'JSs ist unbestreitbar, dass die re-
formirte christologische Literatur^ die urn die Ze.it der Concordienformel ihren Bluthepunkt
erreicht, durch Geist, Scharfsinn, Gehhrsamkeit und philosophised Bildung der lutherischen
Theologie vollkommen ebenbttrtiff,ja in manchen Beziehungen ulerlegen ist.' He then gives a
fine analysis of the Christology of Beza, Danaeus, Sadeel, and Ursmus.
1 See Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 466 sq.
3 In a series of tracts : De personali unione duarum naturarum in Christo, 1561 (written in
1560); Sententia de libello B«/#w0en, 1 561 ; De Divina maj estate Domini nostri J. Christi
ad dexteram Patris et de vera prcssentia corporis et sanguinis ejus in cana, 1562 ; and Recogni-
tio propheticce et apost. doctrines de vera Maj estate Dei^ 1564. In Brentii Opera, 1590,T.
VIII. pp. 831-1108. Against Brenz wrote BULLINGKR: Tractatio verborum Domini Joh.
XIV. 2, Tiguri,1561; Responsio, qua ostenditur, sententiam de ccelo et dextera Dei jftrmiter
adhuc perstare, 1562 ; also Peter Martyr and Beza. The Roman Catholics sided with the
Reformed against the Lutheran ubiquity. On the Christology of Brenz, comp. DORNER : Entw.
Geschichte der Christologie,Vol. II. pp. 668 sqq. ; EBRARD : AbendmahltVoL II. pp. 646 sqq.
(Brenz und die Ubiguitft) ; and STEITZ in Herzog, Vol. XVI. pp. 584 sq,q.
§ 45. THE FORM OF CONCORD, 1577. 291
tion between two natures and one person, but implies at the same
time, as he felt himself, a considerable departure from it, since he car-
ried the theanthropic perfection of the exalted Saviour to the very be-
ginning of his earthly life. He took up Luther's idea of ubiquity, and
developed it to its legitimate consequences in the interest of the eucha-
ristic presence. According to his system, the incarnation is not only a
condescension of the eternal Logos to a personal union with human
nature, but at the same time a deification of human nature, or an infu-
sion of the divine substance and fullness into the humanity of Christ at
the first moment of its existence. Consequently the man Jesus of
Nazareth was omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent in the Virgin's
womb, in the manger, and on the cross, as well as he is now in the state
of glory.1 The only difference is, that these divine attributes were con-
cealed during his earthly life, and were publicly revealed to his dis-
ciples at the ascension to the right hand of God, i. e., to the omnipotent
and omnipresent power of God.2 The states of humiliation and ex-
altation are not successive states, but co-existed during the earthly life
of Christ. While Christ's humanity was poor, weak, suffering, and
dying on earth, it was simultaneously almighty and omnipresent in
heaven. He ascended in his humanity invisibly to heaven even at
his incarnation, and remained there (John iii. 13). The visible ascen-
sion from Mount Olivet would have been impossible without the pre-
ceding invisible exaltation. Heaven is no particular place, but a state
of entire freedom from space, or absolute existence in God. Space
and time, with their limitations, belong only to the earthly mode of ex-
istence. Wherever the divinity is, there is also Christ's humanity,3 i. e.,
every where ; not, indeed, in the way of local extension and diffusion,
but in a celestial, supernatural manner, by virtue of the hypostatic
union and the real communication of the properties of the divine nat-
ure to the human.
This is the most consistent, though also the most objectionable form
1 'Majestatem divinam temper e carnis suce in hoc semfo dissimulavit s&u ea sese (utPaulus
loquitur) exinanivit, tamen numguam ea caruit. . . . Texit et obduxit suam majestatem forma
servi.'
a 'JEum tune manifesto spectaculo voluisse testtficari et declarare, se verum Dewn et homi-
nem9 hoc est, una cum divinitate et humanitate sua jam inde ab initio suce incarnationis omnia
implevisseS
3 6 UUcunque est Deitas, ibi etiam est humanitas Christi.'
292 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTEITOOM.
of the ubiquity dogma. It virtually resolves tlie earthly life of Christ
into a Gnostic delusion, or establishes % double humanity of Christ —
one visible and real, and the other invisible and fantastic.1
Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586), the chief author of the c Formula of
Concord,' next to Andreas, less original and speculative than Brenz, but
superior in patristic learning and sound judgment, elaborated a Chris-
tology which mediates between Luther andMelanchthon, and taught only
a relative or restricted ubiquity, i. e., a multipresence, which depends
upon the will of Christ.2 He was followed by Selnecker, Chyteus, and
most of the Saxon divines. He opposes the Swabian doctrine of a
physical, natural communication and transfusion of idiomata, and of
the capacity of the finite for the infinite, except in the sense that God
may dwell and reveal himself in man. He calls the absolute ubiquity
a monstrosity (monstrwn, portentum), as Selnecker called it a Satanic
fiction (figmentwn Satance). Christ is an incarnate God, not a deified
man. But the Logos may temporarily communicate a divine attribute
to the human nature in a supernatural manner as a donum sujperad-
ditum, without thereby setting aside the abiding limitations of human-
ity; just as fire may give heat and brightness to iron without turning
the iron into fire. Chemnitz agrees with the Eef ormed, ,as he express-
ly says, in adopting the ' simple, literal, and natural signification' of
the ascension of Christ as related by the Evangelists, i. e., that * he was,
by a visible motion, lifted up on high in a circumscribed form and lo-
cation of the body, and departed further and further from the presence
of the Apostles,' and is, consequently, in this sense withdrawn from us
who are on earth, until he shall in like manner < descend from heaven
in glory in a visible and circumscribed form.' Even in glory Christ's
1 Brenz was followed by Jacob Andrea, Schegck, and the Swabians generally, who have
shown a good deal of speculative genius (down to Schelling, Hegel, and Baur), and also by a
few divines of North Germany, as Andreas Musculus, John Wigand, and for a time by Heshu-
sius, who afterwards opposed absolute ubiquity. Leonhard Hutter and JEgidius Hunnius, who
were Swabians by birth, likewise took substantially the Swabian view, though more for the pur-
pose of maintaining the authority of the ' Formula of Concord. ' See Dorner, Vol. II. p. 775.
2 In his important work : De duabus naturis in Christo, de hypostatica eai*um nnione, de
communicatione idiomatum et aliis qucestionibus inde dependentibus, Jense, 1570, and often re-
printed. Comp. Steitz, 1. c. pp. 592-597 ; and Dorner, Vol, II. pp. 695 sqq. Heppe says
(Dogm. Vol. II. p. 131): 'Der Gegensatz der melanchthonischen und der wurtembergisch-
brenziscften Christologie ist sonnenklar. Jene erbaut sich aufdem Gedanken, dass Gott wirk-
licher Mensch geworden ist, wahrend diese sich urn den Gedanken lagert, dass ein Mensch Gott
geworden it*. *
§ 45. THE FORM OF CONCORD, 1517.
body is finite and somewhere (alicubi). Nevertheless, while seated at
the right hand of God, he may be present where he chooses to be^ and
he is present where his Word expressly indicates such presence ; as in
the eucharist (according to the literal interpretation of the words of
institution), or when he appeared to dying Stephen, or to Paul on the
way to Damascus.1
Chemnitz escaped some difficulties of the Swabian theory, but by
endeavoring to mediate between it and the Melanehthonian and Swiss
theory, he incurred the objections to both. Christ's glorified body is
indeed not confined to any locality, and may be conceived to move
with lightning speed from place to place, but its simultaneous pres-
ence in many places, wherever the eucharist is celebrated, involves the
chief difficulty of an omnipresence, and is just as inconsistent with the
nature of a body.
Of subordinate interest was the incidental question, disputed mainly
between Wigand and Heshusius, whether the flesh of Christ were al-
mighty and adorable only in concrete, or also in dbstracto (extra per-
sonam). Chemnitz declared this to be a mere logomachy, and advised
the combatants to stop it, but in vain.
The first creed which adopted the ubiquity dogma was the Wiir-
temberg Confession drawn up by Brenz, and adopted by a Synod at
Stuttgart, Dec. 19, 1559.2
The Formula Concordise on this subject is a compromise between
the Swabian absolute ubiquitarianism represented by Andreas and ex-
pressed in the Epitome, and the Saxon hypothetical ubiquitarianism
represented by Chemnitz and expressed in the Solida Dedaratw. The
compromise satisfied neither party. The Helmstadt divines — Tilemann
Heshusius, Daniel Hoffmann, and JBasilius Sattler — who had signed
1 'Prcesentia hcsc assumtce naturce in Christo non est naturalis, vel essentialis,$edvohtntaria
et Kberrima, dependens a voluntate et potentia Filii Dei, h. e. ubi se humana natura adesse velle
certo verbo tradidit, promisit et asseveravit.'
8 Confessio et doctrina theologorum in Ducatu Wurtembergensi de vera prcesentia corporis
et sanywnis J. Chr. in Ccsna dominica. Here the absolute ubiquity is taught, not, indeed,
in the way of a 'diffusio humance naturae1 or 'distractio membrorum Christi, but $> that
6 HOMO Christus quoque IMPLET OMNIA modo ccelesti et humane natures imperscnttabili.'
See the German in Heppe : Die Entstehung und Fortbildung des Lutherthums und die kirchl.
Bekenntniss-Schriften desselben, p. 63. Melanchthon concealed his grief over this change of
Brenz beneath a facetious remark to a friend on the poor Latinity of this confession ('ffechin-
gense Lntinwn :' Corp. Reform. Vol. IX. p. 1036 j comp. Grieseler, Vol. IV. p. 454 ; J. Hart-
mann : Jok. Brenz, p. 249).
294 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
the written Formula in 1577, refused to sign the printed copy in 1580,
because it contained unauthorized concessions to the Swabian view. A
colloquy was held in Quedlinburg, 1583, at which the ubiquity question
was discussed for several days without result.1 Chemnitz was in a
difficult position, as he nearly agreed with the Helmstadtians, and con-
ceded that certain expressions had been wrested from him, but he
signed the Formula for the sake of peace, with the reservation that he
understood it in the sense of a hypothetical or limited ubiquity.
THE GIESSEN AND TUBINGEN OONTEOVEBSY ABOUT THE KENOSIS AND
KRYPSis.2 — The ubiquity question was revived under a new shape, on
the common basis of the 'Formula of Concord7 and the dogma of the
communicatio idiomatum, in the controversy between the Senoticism
of the theologians of Giessen, which followed in the track of Chem-
nitz, and the Kv^yptidsm of the theologians of Tubingen, which was
based upon the theory of Brenz and Andrese. The controversy forms
the last phase in the development of the orthodox Lutheran Christology ;
it continued from 1616-1625, and was lost in the Thirty-Tears' War.
Both parties agreed that the human nature of Christ from the mo-
ment of the incarnation, even in the mother's womb and on the cross,
was in full possession (KTT}<NC) of the divine attributes of omnipresence,
omnipotence, omniscience, etc. ; but they differed as to their use (xpn-
mg). The Giessen divines — Balthazar Mentzer (d. 1627), his son-in-
law, Justus Feuerborn (d. 1656), and John Winckelmann — taught a
real self-renunciation (fcli/wenc, evacuatio, exinanitio)? i. e., that Christ
1 Heshusius wrote concerning this Colloquy: 'Constanter rejicio ubiquitatem. Chem-
nitzius, Kirchnerus, Chytrceus antea rejecerunt earn : nunc in gratiam Tubingensium cum magno
ecclesice scandalo ejus patrocinium suscipiunt, ipsorum igitur constantia potius accusanda est.1
Comp. Acta disput. QuedUnb.; Dorner,Vol. II. p. 773; Heppe,Vol. IV. p. 316 ; and G. Frank,
Vol. I. p. 259 (Helmstadt und die Ubiquitaf).
a The Saxon Solida decisio, 1624, and an Apologia decisionis^ 1625 ; FEUERBORN : Scia-
graphia de div. Jes. Christo juxta humanit. cojnmunicatce majestatis usurpation^ 1621 ; Kevw-
orypaQia XjOierroXoydcfi, Marburg, 1627; MENTZER: Juxta defensio against the Tubingen di-
vines, Giss. 1624; THUMMITJS: Majestas J. Christi Ssavbpuirov, Tiib. 1621 ; Acta Mentze-
riana, 1625; TaTreivuffiypafyia sacra, A. e. Repetitio sance et or t hod. doctrines de humiliation*,
Jesu Christi, Tiib. 1 623 (900 pp. 4to), On the "Romish side : Bellum ubiquisticum vetus et novwn,
PUling.1627; Alter undneuer lutherischer Katzenkrieg v.d. Ubiquit#t,Ingolst. 1629; COTTA:
Historia doctrinw de duplici statu Christi (in his edition of Gerhard's Loci theofogici,Vol. IV.
pp. 60 sqq.) ; WALOH : Religionsstreitigkeiten, Vol. I. p. 206 ; Vol. IV. p. 551 ; BAUR : Gesch.
der L. v. d. Dreieiniffkeit, Vol. III. p. 450; THOMASIUS : Christi Person und Werk, Vol. II
pp. 891-450 ; DORNER, Vol. II. pp. 788-809 ; G. FRANK, Vol. I. p. 336.
3 Hence they were called Kenotiker, Kenoticists*
§ 45. THE FORM OF CONCORD, 1577. 295
voluntarily laid aside the actual use of the divine attributes and func-
tions, except in the working of miracles ; while the Tubingen divines —
Lucas Osiander II. (d.1638), Theodor Thumm,or Thummius (d.1630),
and Melchior Nicolai (d. 1659) — taught that he made a secret use of
them (Kpfyis, occulta usurpatio).1
The Giessen divines, wishing chiefly to avoid the reproach of &por-
tentosa ubiquitas^ represented the omnipresence of Christ's humanity,
not as an all-pervading existence,2 but as an all-controlling power, or
as an element of omnipotence.3 The Tubingen school taught, in conse-
quence of the unio hypostatica, an absolute omnipresence of Christ's
humanity, as a quiescent quality, which consists in filling all the spaces
of the universe, even from the conception to the death on the cross.4
A theological commission at Dresden, with Hoe von Hoenegg at the
head, decided substantially in favor of the Giessen theory (1525), and
against the Tubingen doceticism, without, however, advancing the solu-
tion of the problem or feeling its real difficulty.
The Giessen theory is more consistent with the realness of Christ's
human life, but less consistent with itself, since it admits an occasional
interruption of it by the use of the inherent powers of the divinity;
the Tubingen theory, on the other hand, virtually destroys the distinc-
tion between the state of humiliation and the state of exaltation, and
resolves the life of Christ into a magical illusion.
The modern Tubingen school of Baur and Strauss forms a strange
parallel and contrast to that of the seventeenth century : it starts from
the same principle that ' the finite is capable of the infinite,5 but extends
it pantheistically to humanity at large, and denies its applicability to
Christ, on the ground that the divine fullness can not be emptied into
a single individual.5 Therefore, while the old Tubingen school in effect,
1 Hence their name, Kryptiker, Krypticists.
2 Indistantia, nuda adessentia ad creatttras, prcesentia simplex.
3 Actio, operatic, prcesentia modificata. This amounts to pretty much the same thing with
the omniprcesentia energetica of the Calvinists.
4 The same applies to omnipotence. The Tiihingen divines gave an affirmative answer to
the question, 'An HOMO Christus in Deum assump-fus in statu exinanitionis tamquam rex prce-
sens cuncta, licet latenter, gubernarit f They made, however, an apparent concession to their
opponents by assuming a brief suspension of the use of the divine majesty during the agony in
Gethsemane and the crucifixion, in order that Christ might really suffer as high-priest. See
Dorner,Vol.II.p.799.
6 * In an individual,' says Strauss, in the dogmatic conclusion of his first Leben Jesu (Vol.
IT. p. 710). * in one God-man, the properties and functions which the Church doctrine ascribes
VOL. L— U
996 THE GREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
though not in intention, destroys the real humanity of Christ, the mod-
ern Tubingen school consistently denies his divinity, and resolves all
the supernatural and miraculous elements of the gospel history into a
mythic poem or fiction.
In the modern revival of orthodox Lutheranism, the ubiquity of the
body of Christ is either avoided, or advocated only in the hypothetical
form, and mostly with a leaning towards a more literal acceptation of
the fcsWcnc (Phil. ii. 7) than the Giessen divines contended for.1
Vni. THE HADES COOTBOVERSY.8
This controversy, which is discussed in the ninth article of the
* Formula of Concord,5 referred to the time, manner, extent, and aim
of Christ's mysterious descent into the world of departed spirits. It
implied the questions whether the descent took place before or after
the death on the cross ; whether it were confined to the divine nature,
or to the soul, or extended to the body ; whether it belonged to the
state of humiliation, or to the state of exaltation; whether it were a con-
tinuation of suffering and a tasting of the second death, or a triumph
over hell. The answer to these questions depended in part on the dif-
ferent views of the communication of idiomata and the ubiquity of the
body, as also on Hades, or Sheol, itself, which some identified with hell
proper (Gehenna), while others more correctly understood it in a wider
sense of the whole realm of the dead. Luther himself had at different
to Christ contradict themselves ; in the idea of the race the? agree. Humanity is the union
of the two natures— the incarnate God— the infinite externalizing itself in the finite, and the
finite spirit rememhering its infinitude. '
1 So Thomasius, Liebner, Gess. But the absolute ubiquity also has found an advocate in
Philippi (Kirchl Glaulenslehre, Vol. IV. I. pp. 394). Dr. Stahl, the able theological lawyer,
in his Die lutherische Kirche und die Union (Berlin, 1859, pp.185 sqq.), admits that the ubiq-
uity question has no religious interest except as a speculative basis for the possibility of the
eucharistic presence, and approaches Bbrard's view of an 'extra-spacial, central communica-
tion of the virtue* of Christ's body to the believer. Dr. Krauth defends Chemnitz's view,
and what he would rather style 'the personal omnipresence of the human nature of Christ*
(1. c. p. 496). But the human nature of Christ is impersonal, and simply taken up into union
with the pre-existent personality of the Divine Logos.
* -aSnisrus : Comment, in Psa. xvi. Frcf. 1544, and Enarratio Psalmi hviii., with an appen-
dix de descensu Christi ad inferna, Frcf. 1553. A. GREVIUS : Memoria J. Mpini instaurata,
Hamb. 1736 ; DIETELMAIER : Historia dogmatis de descensu Christi, Norimb. 1741, Alt. 1762 ;
PLANCK, Vol. V. I. pp. 251-284; KONIG : Die Lehre von Christi Hb'llenfahrt, pp. 152 sqq.;
GffDEK: Die Lehre der Erscheinung Christi unter den Todten, Bern, 1853, pp. 222 sqq.;
G. FRANK, Vol. I. p. 160 sq. ; F*. H. R. PRANK, Vol. III. p. 397 sqq.
§ 45. THE FOEM OF CONCORD, 1577. 297
times very different opinions of the descent, but regarded it chiefly as
a victory over the kingdom of Satan.
John JUpinus,1 a Lutheran minister in Hamburg, started the contro-
versy. He taught, first in 15M and afterwards more fully, that Christ
descended with his spirit into the region of the lost, in order to suffer
the pains of hell for men, and thus to complete his humiliation or the
work of redemption. So he explained Psalm xvi. 10 (comp. Acts ii. 27,
31). Luther himself had at one time (1524) given a similar exposition
of this passage. Flacius sided with JSpinus. But this theory was more
Reformed than Lutheran, and was opposed by his colleagues, who car-
ried the dispute into the pulpit and excited the people. Matsberger in
Augsburg represented the descent, according to the usual view, as a
local change, but had to suffer three years' imprisonment for it. Brenz
condemned such locomotion as inconsistent with the dignity and ubiq-
uity of Christ, and denied the locality of hell as well as of heaven.
This accords with his view of the ascension. Melanchthon, being ap-
pealed to by the magistrate of Hamburg, answered with caution, and
warned against preaching on subjects not clearly revealed. He re-
ferred to a sermon of Luther, preached at Torgau, 1533, in which he
graphically describes the descent as a triumphant march of Christ
through the dismayed infernal hosts, so that no believer need here-
after be afraid of the devil and damnation. Melanchthon thought
this view was more probable than that of JEpinus; at all events,
Christ manifested himself as a conqueror in hell, destroyed the power
of the devil, raised many dead to life (Matt, xxvii. 53), and proclaimed
to them the true doctrine of the Messiah ; to ask more is unnecessary.
He advised the magistrate to exclude the controversy from the pulpit.2
1 A Hellenized form (AiVeu/o'e, high, lofty) for his German name Hock, or Hoch. He was
born, 1499, at Ziegesar, Brandenburg; studied at Wittenberg, became pastor at St. Peter's,
Hamburg, 1529, Superintendent in 1532, introduced the Reformation into that city, signed the
Articles of Smalcald, 1537, stood in high esteem, and died 1553. He was a colleague of
Westphal, and opposed with Flacius the Leipzig Interim.
8 Sept. 1550, Corp. Reform. Vol. VII. p. 665. Comp. Schmidt, Melanchthon, p. 554 sq. In
his Xoct, Melanchthon passes by the descends as unessential. In a letter to Spalatin, March
SO, 1531 (Corp. Reform. Vol. II. p. 490), he expresses his inability to explain the dark pas-
sage, 1 Pet. iii. 19, 20. He was pleased with Luther's sermon at Torgau, but added, in a pri-
vate letter to Anton Musa (March 12, 1543, Corp. Reform. Vol. V. p. 58), that Christ proba-
bly preached the gospel to the heathen in the spirit world, and converted such men as Scipio
and Fabius. (Zwingli likewise believed in the salvation of the nobler heathen.) He wrote
to JEpinus, April 20, 1546 (.Corp. Reform. Vol. VI. p. 1 16), to preach the necessary doctrines
298 THE CREEDS OP CHRISTENDOM.
Several of the most violent opponents of JSpinus were deposed and
expelled. The dispute was lost in more serious controversies. It was
almost confined to Hamburg.
The Formula of Concord sanctioned substantially the view of Lu-
ther and Melanchthon, without entering into the minor questions.
IX. THE ADIAPHORISTIO (OE INTEEIMISTIO) CONTROVERSY (1548-1555). l
This controversy is the subject of the tenth article of the < Formula
of Concord,' but was the first in the order of time among the disputes
which occasioned this symbol. It arose, soon after Luther's death, out
of the unfortunate Smalcald war, which resulted in the defeat of the
Lutheran states, and brought them for a time under the ecclesiastical
control of the Emperor Charles V. and his Eomish advisers.
Ecclesiastical rites and ceremonies, which are neither commanded
nor forbidden in the "Word of God, are in themselves indifferent
(a&a^opa, media, res medice, Mitteldinge\ but the observance or non-
observance of them may, under testing circumstances, become a matter
of principle and of conscience. The Augsburg Confession and Apol-
ogy (Art. VII.) declare that agreement in doctrine and the adminis-
tration of the sacraments is sufficient for the unity of the Church, and
may co-exist with diversity in usages and rites of human origin. Lu-
ther himself desired to retain many forms of the Catholic worship
which he considered innocent and beautiful, provided only that no
merit be attached to them and no burden be imposed upon the con-
science,2 But there is a great difference between retaining old forms
of faith, repentance, prayer, good works, rather than speculations on things which even the
most learned did not know.
1 Comp. FLACIUS : Von wahren undfalschen Mitteldingen, etc, ; Entschuldigung geschrieben
an die Universitdt zu Wittenberg der Mittelding halben, etc. j Wider ein recht heidnisch,ja
JSpicurisch Buck der Adiaphoristen^ darin das Leipzische Interim vertheidigt wird, etc. ; and
other pamphlets, printed at Magdeburg (as the ' Kanzlei Gottes'*), 1549 , WIG-AND : De neu~
tralibus et mediis, Frcf. 15CO ; SCHI/&SSELBURG : Cat. ffceret. Lib. XIII. (de Adiaphoristis et
Interimistis) ; BIEK : Das dreij "ache Interim ,Leipz. 1 725 ; PLANCK, Vol. IV. pp. 85-248 ; H. Ros-
SBL : Mel und das Interim (at the close of Twesten's monograph on Flacius, Berlin, 1844) ;
RANKS : Deutsche Gesck., etc. Vol. V. ; GIESELER, Vol. IV. p. 435 ; HERZOG : Encykl. Vol. I.
p. 124 ; Vol. VIII. p. 288 5 SCHMIDT : Mel pp. 491, 495, 524 ; G. FRANK, Vol. L pp. 113, 116 ;
FR. H. R. FRANK, Vol. IV. pp. 1-120 ; DORNER, p. 331.
2 See his humorous letter to Buchholzer in Berlin, Dec. 4, 1539 (Brief e, Vol. V. p. 235), which
might have considerably embarrassed the anti-Adiaphorists had they known it. He advises
Elector Joachim II. that in introducing the Reformation he may, if he desired it, put on one
or three priestly garments, like Aaron ; may hold one or even seven processions, like Joshua
§ 45. THE FORM OF CONCORD, 1577. 299
and restoring them after they have been abolished, as also between a
voluntary and a compulsory observance. When circumcision was yet
lawful and practiced by Jewish Christians, Paul resisted it, and saved
the principle of Christian liberty against the Judaizing error which
made circumcision a condition of salvation. Some of the Romish
ceremonies, moreover, especially those connected with the canon of the
mass, involve doctrine, and affect the whole idea of Christian worship.
When the Emperor, with the aid of the treasonable Elector Maurice
of Saxony, had broken up the Lutheran League of Smalcald, he re-
quired the Protestants to submit to a doctrinal and ceremonial com-
promise till the final settlement of the religious controversy by an
oecumenical Council.
The first compromise was the so-called Augsburg Interim, enacted
by the Diet of Augsburg (May, 1548) for the whole empire. It was
essentially Eomish, and yielded to the Protestants only the marriage
of priests and the cup of the laity. It was rigidly executed in the
Southern and prevailingly Eoman Catholic states, where about four
hundred Liitheran preachers were expelled or dismissed for non-con-
formity.
The second compromise, called the Leipzig Interim, was enacted
by the Elector Maurice (December, 1548), with the aid of Melanchthon
and other leading Lutheran divines, for his Protestant dominion, where
the Augsbnrg Interim could not be carried out. It was much milder,
saved the evangelical creed in its essential features — as justification by
the sole merits of Christ through a living faith — but required con-
formity to the Eomish ritual, including confirmation, episcopal ordina-
tion, extreme unction, and even the greater part of the canon of the
mass, and such ceremonies as fasts, processions, and the use of images
in churches.1
'The Protestants were forced to the alternative of either submitting
to one of these temporary compromises, or risking the fate of martyrs.
Melanchthon, in the desire to protect churches from plunder and
before Jericho; and may dance before it, as David danced before the ark, provided only such
things were not made necessary for salvation.
1 See the text of the two Interims in GIESELER, Vol. IV. pp. 193-196 and 201-203; the
Interim Lipsiense, also, in Corp. Reform. Vol. VII. The term gave rise to sarcastic conun-
drums, as Interimo, interitus, Hinterim, der Schnlk ist hinter ihm (the villain is behind it). On
the political aspects of the Interim,, see the fifth volume of Hanke.
300 THE CBEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
ministers from exile, and in the hope of saving the cause of the Ref-
ormation for better times, jret not without blamable weakness, gave
his sanction to the Leipzig Interim, and undertook to act as a mediator
between the Emperor, or his Protestant ally Maurice, and the Prot-
testant conscience.1 It was the greatest mistake in his life, yet not
without plausible excuses and incidental advantages: He advocated
immovable steadfastness in doctrine, but submission in every thing
else for the sake of peace. He had the satisfaction that the University
of Wittenberg, after temporary suspension, was restored, and soon fre-
quented again by two thousand students ; that no serious attempt was
made to introduce the Interim there, and that matters remained pretty
much as before. But outside of Wittenberg and Saxony his conduct
appeared treasonable to the cause of the Reformation, and acted as an
encouragement to an unscrupulous and uncompromising enemy. Hence
the venerable man was fiercely assailed from every quarter by friend
and foe. He afterwards frankly and honorably confessed that he had
gone too far in this matter, and ought to have kept aloof from the in-
sidious counsels of politicians.2 He fully recovered his manhood in
the noble Saxon Confession which he prepared in 1551 for the Council
of Trent, and which is not merely a repetition of the Augsburg Con-
fession, but also a refutation of the theology, worship, and government
of the papal Church.
Flacius chose the second alternative. Escaping from Wittenberg
to the free city of Magdeburg, he opened from this stronghold of rigid
Lutheranism, with other c exiles of Christ,' a fierce and effective war
against Melanchthon and the c dangerous rabble of the Adiaphorists.'
He charged his teacher and benefactor with superfluous mildness,
weakness, want of faith, treason to truth ; and characterized the Leipzig
1 To the Augsburg Interim he was decidedly opposed, and he had also sundry objections to
the ceremonial part of the Leipzig Interim. He is only responsible for its doctrinal part.
See his letters from this period in Corp. Reform. Vols. VI. and VII., and Schmidt's Mel pp.
507 and 524.
3 In a letter to his enemy, M. Flacius, dated Sept. 5, 1556, he was not ashamed to confess,
after some slight reproaches, ' Vincite! Cedo; nihil pugno de ritibus illis, et maxime opto, ut
dulds sit ecclesiarum concordia. Fateor etiam kac in re a me peccatum esse, et a Deo veniam
peto, quod non procul fugi insidiosas illas deliberations, Sed ilia quce mihifalso a te et a
Gallo objiciuntur, refutabo.' Corp. /fr/om. Vol. VIII. p. 841 sq. And to the Saxon pastors he
wrote, Jan. 17, 1557 (Vol. IX, p. 61) : 'Pertractus sum ad auktrum deliberations insidiosas.
Quare sicubi vel lapsus sum, vel languidius aliguid egi, peto a Deo et ab Ecclesia veniam, et
judiciis Ecclesice obtemperabo.'
§ 45. THE FORM OF CONCOED, 1577. 301
Interim as an undisguised < union o£ Christ and Belial, of liglit and
darkness, of sheep and wolf, of Christ and Antichrist,' aiming at the
* reinstatement of popery and Antichrist in the temple of God.' l His
chief text was 1 Cor. x. 20-23. He had upon the whole the best of
the argument, although in form he violated all the laws of courtesy
and charity, and continued, even long afterwards, to persecute Melanch-
thon as an abettor of Antichrist
In a milder tone the best friends of Melanchthon remonstrated with
him. Brenz preferred exile and misery to the Interim, which he called
interitus. Bucer of Strasburg did the same, and accepted a call to
England. Calvin on this question sided with the anti-Adiaphorists,
and wrote a letter to Melanchthon (June 18, 1550), which is a model
of brotherly frankness and reproof. 'My present grief,' he says in
substance, ' renders me almost speechless. ... In openly admonishing
you, I am discharging the duty of a true friend ; and if I employ a
little more severity than usual, do not think it is owing to any diminu-
tion of my old affection and esteem for you. ... I know you love noth-
ing better than open candor. I am truly anxious to approve all your
actions, both to myself and to others. But at present I accuse yon be-
fore yourself, that I may not be forced to join those who condemn you
in your absence. This is the sum of your defense : That provided
purity of doctrine be retained, externals should not be pertinaciously
contended for. . . . But you extend the adiaphora too far. . . . Some of
them contradict the Word of God. . . . When we are in the thick of
the fight, we must fight all the more manfully ; the hesitation of the
general brings more disgrace than the flight of a whole herd of com-
mon soldiers. All will blame you if you do not set the example of
unflinching steadfastness. ... I had rather die with you a hundred
times than see you survive the doctrines surrendered by you. I have
1 Thus he concisely states the case on the long title-page of his Apology, or JEntsckuldigung,
etc., addressed to the University of Wittenberg, with a letter to Melanchthon, Magdeburg,
1549. The concluding words of the title state the aim of the Interim thus: 'Das Ende. ist
die Mnsetzwig des Papstthums ttnd JSinstellung des Antichrists in den Tempel Christi, Star-
kung der Gottlosen, dass sie fiber der Kirche Christi stohiren, Betrilbung der Gottfurchtigen,
item Schwachunff, Einfuhrung in Zweifel, Trennung und unzahlige Aergerniss.' He relates
of Melanchthon that he derived from an eclipse of the moon in 1 548 the vain hope of the near
death of the Emperor, which would end these troubles. He also published several confiden-
tial letters of Luther to Melanchthon, written during the Diet at Augsburg, 1530, upbraiding
him for his philosophy and timidity.
302 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
no fear for the truth of God, nor do I distrust your steadfastness. . .
Pardon me, dear Philip, for loading your breast with these groans
May the Lord continue to guide you by his Spirit and sustain you by
his might.' l
The defeat of the Emperor by Elector Maurice, who now turned
against him, as he had turned before against his fellow-Protestants, and
the consequent Peace of Augsburg, 1555, made an end to the Interim
troubles, and secured freedom to the Lutheran Churches. But among
theologians the controversy continued till the death of Melanehthon.
The conduct of Melanchthon weakened his authority and influence,
which had been rising higher and higher before and after Luther's
death, especially in the University of Wittenberg. Before this unfor-
tunate controversy he was universally regarded as the theological head
of the evangelical Church in Germany, but now a large number of
Lutherans began to look upon him with distrust.
X. THE STRASBURG CONTROVERSY ON PREDESTINATION BETWEEN ZANOHI
AND MARBAOH (1561-1563). a
This is the last specific doctrine discussed in the Formula of Con-
cord (Art. XI.). The German and Swiss Reformers alike renewed,
1 Opera, Vol. IX. p. 54, and Letters of Calvin, by J. Bonnet, English translation, Vol. II.
p. 257. A letter of similar spirit and import to Melanchthon, by his friend Anton Corvinus
(Rabener), a distinguished reformer in Hesse and Gottingen, who suffered imprisonment for
his opposition to the Interim, was recently discovered in the Royal Library at Hanover by
Iw'an Franz, and published in Kahnis, Zeilschrift fur die hist. TheoL 1874, pp. 105 sqq.,
from which I quote the following passages : * 0 Philippe, o inquam Philippe noster, redi per
immortalem Christum ad pristinum candorem, ad pristinam tuam sinceritatem ! non languefa-
cito ista tua formidine, pusillanimitate et inepta moderatione nostrorum animos tantopere !
Non aperito hac ratione ad Papatus recurrentem impietatem ac Idolomaniasfenestramacja-
nuam I Non sis tantorum in Ecclesia offendiculorum autor I Ne sinas tua tarn egregia
scripta, dicta, facta, quibus minfice de Ecclesia hactenus meritus es, isto condonationis, mode-
rationis, novationis ncevo ad eum modum deformari! Cogita, quantum animi ista nostra car-
nis ac rationis consilia et adversariis addant et nostris adimant ! Perpende, quam placard
etiam istis condonationibus adversarii nostri non queant, qni totius Papatus doctrinam et om-
nes ex a>guo impios cultus reposcunt et ex nostra levitate spem concipiunt se hac in re facile voti
compotes futuros. Detestatur JDominus apud Jeremiam eos, qui manus pessimorum confortant,
ut non convertatur unusquisque a malitia sua. Cur igitur in tarn ardua causa non tales nos
gerimus ut hujusmodi detestatio competere in nos haudpossit? qua perversitate arundo hue illuc
ventis agitata did quam Johannis constantiam imitari malumus / . . . Proinde Te, o noster
Philippe, iterum atque iterum per ilium ipsum Christum redemptorem nostrum et brevifuturum
judicem rogamus, ut professionis tuce memor talem te cum reliquis Vitebergensibus jam geras,
qualem Te ab initio hujus causes ad EJectoris captivitatem usque gessisti, hoc est, ut ea sentias,
dicas, scribas, agas, quce Philippum, Christianum Doctor em decent, non aulicum Philosophuni*'
* PLANCK, Vol. VI. pp. 809 sqq.; ROHRIOH: Geschichte der Reform, im JElsass, bes. in Strass-
§ 45. THE FORM OF CONCORD, 1577. 303
as an impregnable fortress in their war against the Pelagian corrup-
tions of Rome, the Augustinian system, with its two closely connected
doctrines of the absolute spiritual slavery or inability of the unregen-
erate will of man, and the absolute predestination of God ; though
with the characteristic difference that Luther and Melanchthon empha-
sized the servum arbitrium, Zwingli the promdentia, Calvin theprce-
destinatio. In other words, the German Reformers started from the
anthropological premise, and inferred from it the theological conclu-
sion ; while Calvin made the absolute sovereignty of God the corner-
stone of his system. Luther firmly adhered to the servum arlitrium,
but was more cautions, in his later years, on the mystery of iheprcedesti-
natio.1 Melanchthon gave up both for his synergism and the univer-
sality of grace, though he continued in friendly correspondence with
Calvin, who on his part put the mildest construction on this depart-
ure. The rigid Lutherans all retained Luther's view of total depravity
in opposition to synergism, and some of them (namely, Amsdorf, Fla-
cius, Brenz, Wigand, and, for a time, Heshusius) were also strict predes-
burg, 3 Theile, Strasburg, 1830-1832; SCHWEIZER : Centraldogmen der Reform. Kirche, Vol.
I. pp. 418-470 (a very full and able account); HEPPE: Dogmatik des D. Protest. Vol. IL
pp. 44.47 . G. FRANK, Vol. I pp. 178-184; FR. H. R. FRANK, Vol. IV. pp. 121-344.
1 The Philippist Lasius first asserted (1568) that Luther had recalled his book De servo
arbitrio (1525), but this was indignantly characterized by Flacius and Westphal as a wretched
lie and an insult to the evangelical church. The fact is that Luther emphatically reaffirmed
this book, in a letter to Capito, 1537, as one of his very best (*nuHum enim agnosco mewn jus-
turn librum nisi forte De servo arbitrio, et CatecUsmum'}. And, indeed, it is one of his most
powerful works. Luthardt (Die Lehre vomfreien TPi'Zfoi, Leipz. 1863, p. 122) calls it leine
machtige Schrift, stoh, wahrheitsgeiviss, kuhn in Gedanken und Wort, voll heiligen JEifers,
gewaltigenErnstes, ausinnersterSeele herausgeschrieben. . . . Kaum irgendwo sonst ergiesstsich
gleich macMig und reich der Strom seines Geistes.' Only in regard to predestination Luther
may be said to have moderated his view somewhat, although he never recalled it, that is, he
still taught in his later writings (in his Com. on Genesis, Ch. VI. 6, 18 ; Ch. XXVI.) the dis-
tinction and antagonism between the revealed will of God, which sincerely calls all to repent-
ance and salvation, and the inscrutable secret will which saves only a part of the race; but he
laid the main stress practically on the former and the means of grace, and thus prepared the
way for the llth Article of the Formula of Concord. 4 Srripsi, ' he wrote in 1536, cesse omnia
absoluta et necessaria, sed simul addidi, quod adspiciendus sit Deus revelatus' (Opera exeg.
Vol. VI. p. 300). Luthardt (1. c. p. 146) correctly says (in opposition both to Liitkens and PM-
lippi) that Luther never recalled, but retained his earlier views on predestination and the ne-
cessity of all that happens, and only guarded them against abuse. The result of Kostlin's in-
vestigation is this, that Luther never attempted a solution of the contradiction between the
secret and the revealed will of God. 'Das eben ist seine Lehre, doss unser JErkennen nicht s6
weit reicht, und da-ss wir tins auch das Unbegreifliche und Unverstandliche gefallen lassen mils*
sen. . . . Er selbst spricht aus, dass ein Widerspruch fur uns stehen bleibe, den wir nicht Idsen
Ico'nnen noch sollen.' Luther's Theohgie, Vol. II. p. 32$.
304: THE CEEEDS CXF CHRISTENDOM.
tinarians.1 But the prevailing Lutheran sentiment became gradually
averse to a particular predestination, all the more since it was a prom-
inent doctrine of the hated Oalvinists. The Formula of Concord sanc-
tioned a compromise between Augustinianism and universalism, or
between the original Luther and the later Melanchthon, by teaching
both the absolute inability of man and the universality of divine grace,
without an attempt to solve these contradictory positions. In regard
to the slavery of the human will, the Formula of Concord, following
Luther, went even further than Calvin, and compared the natural
man with a dead statue, or clod, and stone ; while Calvin always (so
far agreeing with the later Melanchthon) insisted on the spontaneity
and responsibility of the will in sinning, and in accepting or rejecting
the grace of God.
• The discussion of this subject was opened by the fierce polemic Tile
mann Heshusius, who, in his defense of the corporeal presence against
the Sacramentarians (Jena, 1560), first attacked also Calvin's doctrine
of predestination, as Stoic and fatalistic, although a year afterwards,
in opposition to synergism, he returned to his former view of an abso-
lute and particular predestination. Beza answered his attack with
superior ability.2
Of more importance was the controversy between Marbach (a friend
of Heshusius) and Zanchi within the Lutheran denomination itself.
It decided its position on the question of predestination and persever-
ance.
The Church of Strasburg had received from its reformer, Martin
Bucer (who on account of the Interim followed a call to the Univer-
sity of Cambridge, 1549, and died there, 1551), a unionistic type, and
acted as mediator between the Swiss and German churches. The
Eeformed Tetrapolitan Confession, the Lutheran Augsburg Confes-
sion, and the Wittenberg Concordia (a compromise between the Lu-
theran and Zwinglian views on the eucharist), were held in great
esteem. Calvin and Peter Martyr, who preached and taught there,
made a deep impression. The celebrated historian Sleidanus, and the
1 See the proof passages in Frank's Theol. der Concord, formel, Vol. IV. pp. 254-261 j Lu-
thardt, pp. 240-244 ; Planck, Vol. IV. pp. 691-712; and Schweizer, 1. c.
3 See Schweizer, 1. c. pp. 402 sqq. Heshusius and Westphal invented the name Calvinists,
which henceforth was used by Lutherans for the Reformed, as the term Zwinglians had been
.before. The term sacramentarians was applied to both without distinction.
§ 45. THE FORM OF CONCORD, 1577. 305
learned founder and rector of the academy, John Sturm, labored in
the same spirit.
Jerome Zanchi (Zanchius, 1516-1590), a converted Italian, and pu-
pil of Peter Martyr, became his successor as Professor of Theology at
Strasburg in 1553. He was one of the most learned Calvinistic di-
vines of the age, and labored for some time with great acceptance.
He taught that in the eucharist Christ's true body broken for us, and
his blood shed for us, are received in the sacrament, but not with the
mouth and teeth, but by faith, and consequently only by believers.
This was approved by his superiors, since the communion was not a
cibus ventris sed mentis, and the same view had been taught by Bucer,
Capito, Hedio, Zell, and Martyr. He opposed ubiquity, and the use
of images in churches. He taught unconditional predestination, and
its consequence, the perseverance of saints, in full harmony, as he be-
lieved, with Augustine, Luther, and Bucer. He reduced his ideas to
four sentences : 1. The elect receive from God the gift of true saving
faith only once ; 2. Faith once received can never be totally and finally
lost, partly on account of God's promise, partly on account of Christ's
intercession ; 3. In every elect believer there are two men, the external
and the internal — if he sin, he sins according to the external, but
against the internal man, consequently he sins not with the whole heart
and will ; 4. "When Peter denied Christ, the confession of Christ died in
his mouth, but not his faith in his heart.
Several years before Zanchi's call to Strasburg, a Lutheran counter-
current had been set in motion, which ultimately prevailed. It was
controlled by John Marbach (1521-1581), a little man with a large
beard, incessant activity, intolerant and domineering spirit, who had
been called from Jena to the pulpit of Strasburg (1545). Inferior in
learning,1 he was superior to Zanchi in executive ability and popular
eloquence. He delighted to be called Superintendent, and used his
authority to the best advantage. He abolished Bucer's Catechism and
introduced Luther's, taught the ubiquity of Christ's body, undermined
the authority of the Tetrapolitan Confession, crippled the church of
French refugees, to which Calvin had once ministered, weakened dis-
1 Melanchthon called him mediocriter doctus, but his own estimate was much higher, and
in his inaugural he spoke with such arrogance that Bucer feared he would prove a great mis-
fortune for the Church at Strasburg. See Rohrich and Schweizer, p. 420.
306 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
cipline, introduced pictures into churches, including those of Luther,
and began to republish at Strasburg the fierce polemical book of
Heshusius on the eucliarist. This brought on the controversy.
Zanchi persuaded the magistrate to suppress the publication of this
book, because of its gross abuse of Melanchthon and a noble German
Prince, the Elector Frederick III. of the Palatinate, and because it
denounced all who differed from his views of the corporeal presence
as heretics. From this time Marbach refused to greet Zanchi on the
street, and gathered from the notes of his students material for accu-
sation that he taught doctrines contrary to the Augsburg Confession.
He objected, however, not so much to predestination itself as to Zanchi's
method of teaching it a priori rather than a posteriori.
The controversy lasted over two years. Zanchi visited and con-
sulted foreign churches and universities. The answers differed not so
much on predestination as on perseverance.1
The theologians of Marburg (Hyperius, Lonicer, Gamier, Orth, Ko-
ding, Pincier, and Pistorius), Zurich (Bullinger, Martyr, Gualter, Lava-
ter, Simler, Haller, Zwingli Jr.), and Heidelberg (Boquinus, Tremellius,
Olevianus, and Diller) decided in favor of the theses of Zanchi. The
ministers of Basel counseled peace and compromise; the divines of
Tubingen approved of the doctrine of predestination, but dissented
from the theses on perseverance ; even Brenz thought the matter might
be amicably settled. The divines of Saxony decided according to their
different attitudes towards Melanchthon : the Melanchthonians liked
Zanchi's doctrine of the eucharist, but disliked his view of predestina-
tion ; the anti-Melanchthonians hated the former, but were favorable
to the latter, because it was so strongly taught by Luther himself (JDe
servo arbitrio).
At last the * Strasburg Formula of Concord' was adopted (1563),
which prescribed the Wittenberg Concordia of 1536 as the rule of
doctrine on the Lord's Supper, and asserted the possibility of the loss
of faith, yet without denying predestination.2 Calvin judged that it
only threw a veil over the truth. Predestination was with Calvin and
Luther an independent and central dogma; the later Lutherans assigned
1 Zanchii Opera, Pt. VII, pp. 65 sqq., and Pt. VIII. pp. 114 sqq. ; Schweizer, pp. 448-470.
2 Printed in the Strasburger Kirchenordnung of 1598, and in Loscher's Historia motuum{
Vol. II. p. 229 sq. See Schweizer, pp. 440 sqq.
§ 45. THE FORM OF CONCORD, 1577. 307
it a subordinate and subsidiary position, and denied its logical conse-
quence, the perseverance of saints. This was also the position of Mar-
bach.
Zanchi subscribed the Strasburg Formula with a restriction, but for
the sake of peace he soon followed a call to a Reformed Italian church
at Ohiavenna, and, being driven away by a pestilence to a mountain,
he wrote a full account of the Strasburg troubles.1 He was supported
in his position by the worthy Sturm and several professors, but had
the disadvantage of being a foreigner unacquainted with the German
tongue. The pastors, backed by the people, triumphed over the pro-
fessors. What Marbach had begun, his pupil Pappus completed.
Strasburg was thoroughly Lutheranized, the Tetrapolitan Confession
formally abolished as ' Zwinglian,' and the Formula Concordise intro-
duced (1597).2
Yet, after all, the spirit of Bucer never died out. From Strasburg
proceeded Spener, with his blessed revival of practical piety and a
better appreciation of the Reformed Confession ;3 and from the theo-
logical faculty of Strasburg hail more recently the appreciating biog-
raphies of Beza, Bucer, and Capito (by Baum), and Melanchthon (by
Carl Schmidt), and the best edition of the works of Calvin (by Baum,
Cunitz, and Reuss). Thus history slowly but surely rectifies its own
mistakes.
THE PREPARATION OF THE FORMULA OF CONCORD.*
These controversies turned the Lutheran churches in Germany into
a camp of civil war, exposed them to the ridicule and obloquy of the
1 It is addressed to Philip of Hesse (Oct. 1,1565), and given by Schweizer, pp. 425-436.
Zanchi accepted afterwards a call to a professorship at the Reformed University of Heidel-
berg, where he died, 1590. He received also calls to England, Lausanne, Geneva, Zurich,
and Leyden, and was justly esteemed for his learning and character. A complete edition of
his works appeared at Geneva in eight parts, in 3 vols. folio.
2 Comp. Heppe, Gesch. des D. Protest. Vol. IV. pp. 312-315.
3 Spener was born at Rappoltsweiler, in Upper Alsace, but his parents were from Strasburg,
and he was educated there, and called himself a Strasburger. Kliefoth (as quoted by Heppe,
Vol. IV. p. 399), from his own rigid Lutheran stand-point, says, not without good reason:
lMit Spener beginntjener grosse Eroberungszug der reformirten Kirche gegen die lutherische,
der seitdem verschiedene Namen, erst Frdmmigkeit, dann Toleranz, dann Union^ dann Confede-
ration aufsein Panier geschrieben hat.'
* For the fullest account, see the sixth volume of Planck's, and the third volume of Heppe's
history.
308 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Papists, and threatened to end in utter confusion and dissolution. The
danger was increased by the endless territorial divisions of Germany,
where every Prince and magistrate acted a little pope, and 'every fosr
looked to his own pelt.' *
The best men in the Lutheran communion deeply deplored this state
of things, and labored for peace and harmony. AUGUSTUS, Elector of
Saxony (1533-1588), a pious and orthodox, though despotic Prince,
controlled the political part, and paid the heavy expenses of the move-
ment.2 JACOB ANDEEJB, Professor of Theology and Chancellor of the
University at Tubingen (1528-1590), a pupil and friend of Breutins, a
man of rare energy, learning, eloquence, and diplomatic skill, managed
the theological negotiations, made no less than one hundred and twenty-
six journeys, and sacrificed the comforts of home and family (he had
twelve children) to the pacification of the Lutheran Church.3 Next
1 As Brenz says : *Es luge einjeglicher Fuchs seines Balges.'
a 80,000 gulden. Augustus was a zealous Lutheran without knowing the difference be-
tween Lutheranism and Philippism, and supported or punished the champions of both parties
as he happened to be led or misled by his courtiers and the theologians.
3 On this remarkable man, see Planck, Vol. VI. pp. 372 sqq. ; Heppe,Vol. IV. pp. 376 sqq.;
G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 219; Hartmann in Herzog, Vol. I. p. 312; Johannsen, Jacob Andrews
Concordistische Thatigkeit, in Niedner's Zeitschrift Jur hist. Theol 1853, No. 3. Andreas
has often been too unfavorably judged. His contemporary opponents called him 'Schmidlin'
(with reference to his father's trade), 'Dr. Jacobellus, the Pope of Saxony, the planet of
Swabia, the apostle of ubiquity, allotrio-episcopus, a worshiper of Bacchus and Mammon,'
etc. He no doubt had a considerable share of vanity, ambition, and theological passion
(which he displayed, e. g., against poor Flacius, even after his death). But there is no reason
to doubt the general purity of his motives, and, compared with some other orthodox Luther-
ans of his age, he was even liberal, at least in his earlier years. At a later period he de-
nounced the alterations of the Augsburg Confession, and compared Melanchthon to Solomon,
who at first wrote glorious things, but was afterwards so far led astray that the Bible leaves
it doubtful whether he were saved (' ob er zu unserm Herrgott oder zu dem Teufel gefahren
sei'). He seemed to be predestinated for the work of his life. Planck gives a masterly
(though not altogether just) analysis of his character, from which I quote a specimen, as it
fairly represents the spirit and style of his celebrated history (Vol. VI. p. 274) • 'In halb
Deutschland herumzureisen,und anjedem neuen Ort mit neuen Menschen zu unterhandlen — hier
mit dem Ministerio einer Reichsstadt, und dort mit einer kleinen Synode von Superintendenten,
welche the GeistlichJceit einer ganzen Grafschaft oder eines Furstenthums reprasentiren — keute
mit Ftadanern und morgen mit Anhangern der Wittenbergischen Schule und Verehrern Me-
lanchthons—jetzt mit den Hauptpersonen, die an dem gelehrten Streit den vorzuglichsten An-
theil genommen, und jetzt mit den Schreiern, die bloss den L&rm vermehrt, und dazwischen
hinein mit einem oder dem andern Stiffen im Lande, die bisher im Verborgenen ilber den Streit
geseufzt hatten — und alien diesen Menschen alles zu werden, um sie zu gewinnen — es gab wirk-
lich kein Geschaft in der Welt, das for ihn so gemacht war, wie dieses, so wie es auch umge-
kehrt wenige Menschen gab, die fur das Geschaft so gemacht waren, wie er. Nimmt man aber
nock dies dazu, doss sich auch der gut ft Andreas selbst dazujiir gemacht Jiielt, dass in die natiir-
liche Thatigkeit seines Geistes auch zuweilen ein kleiner Windzug von Ehrgeiz und Eitelkeit
§ 45. THE FORM OF CONCORD, 1577. 309
to him, and at a later period, MAETIN CHEMSTITZ (1522-1586), the
greatest pupil of Melanchthon and the prince among the Lutheran
divines of his age,1 and NICHOLAS SELNECKEE (1530-1 592),2 originally
likewise a Melanchthonian, took the most important part in the move-
ment, and formed with Andreee the theological c triumvirate,' which
finally completed the Form of Concord.3
hineinblies, dass er auch fur den Reiz der bedeutenden Rolle, die er dabei spielen, und des Aufse-
hens, das er erregen wwrde, nicht unfiihlbar war,ja dassselbst der Gedanke an das [den] Verkehr,
in das er dabei mit so manchen Fiirsten und Herrn kommen, an die Ehrenbezeugungen, die man
ikm hier und da erweisen, an die Raths-Deputationen, die ihn in so mancher kleinen Reichsstadt
bewillkommen, an die Gastpredigten, die man ihm auftragen, und an die Ehrfurcht, womit dann
die ehrliche Burger einer sokhen Stadt, die noch keinen Kanzler von Tubingen gesehen hatten,
mit Fingern aufihn weisen wurden-dass auch der Gedanke daran den heiteren und ojfenherzi-
gen Mann, der es mit seinen kleinen Schwachheiten nicht so genau nahm und sie eben so leicht
sich selbst as andern vergab, auf gewisse Augenblicke sehr stark anziehen konnte — nimmt man
alles diess zusammen, so wird man auch hinreichend erklart haben, wie es kommen konnte, dass
er vor den Schwierigkeiten seines ubernommenen Geschafts nicht erschrak, die sich ihm dock
ebenfalls bei seiner Klugheit, bei seiner Weltkenntniss, und bei seiner besondern durch manche
Erfahrung erkauften Kenntniss der Menschen, die er dabei zu bearbeiten hatte, lebhafter als
hundert andern darstellen mussten. Gewiss standen auch diese Schwierigkeiten lebhaft genug
vor seiner Seele, aber der Eeiz, durch den er in das Gesch&ft hineingezogen wwde, war so
stark, dass er ihm schwerlich hdtte widerstehen k&nnen, wenn er nicht nur die Muhe und Ar-
beit, die es ihn kosten, sondern auch den tausendfachen Verdruss, den es ihm machen, die zahl-
losen Krdnkwigen, die es ihm zuziehen, und selbst alle die stechenden Erinnerungen, durch die es
ihm Rein Alter ver bittern sollte, vorausgesehen hatted Andreas, in connection with Vergerius,
founded the first Bible Society, for Sclavonic nations (1 555). His grandson, Johann Valentin
Andrew (1586-1654), was a man of genins and more liberal views, and a great admirer of the
order and discipline of the Reformed Church in Geneva, which he sadly missed in Germany.
1 Author of Loci theologici; Examen Concilii Tridentini; Harmonia Evangeliorum (com-
pleted by Polycarp Leyser and John Gerhard) ; De duabus in Christo naturis, and other
works of vast learning. The Romanists called him a second Martin Luther, and said : * Si
posterior nonfuisset, prior non stetisset.1 This reminds one of the line, * Si Lyra non lyr as-
set, Lutherus non saltasset.'
8 He prepared the second Latin translation of the Form of Concord, and is best known by
one of Ms hymns (?Ach bleib bei uns, Herr Jesu Christ,1 etc., although it is only in part
from him). His numerous theological writings are forgotten. He was a little man with
short legs, at first a Philippist, then a rigid Lutheran ('parvus Flacius1) ; hence in turn at-
tacked by all parties. 'Die Reformirten, gegen die er den Vers wandte: "Erhalt uns Herr
bei deinem wort und steur1 der ZWINGMANER Mord!" und denen er die Schdndung seiner
Tochter in letzter Instanz zuchreiben zu mussen glaubte, nannten ihn das " Lutherafflein ;" bei
den strengen Lutheranern hiess er: " Schelmkcker, Seelhenker, Seelnecator ;" bei den Melanch-
thonianern: "Judas alter in suspensus" Auch mit seinem Freund Andreas, ist er zuletzt zer-
fatten. . . . Ein Jahrhundert spdter wurde er unter die deutschen Propheten gerechnetS G.
Frank, Vol. I. p. 221.
3 The remaining three authors were David Chytrseus, Professor in Rostock (d. 1 600), who
remained a faithful Melanchthonian, and met the violent abuse of the zealots with silence;
Andreas Musculus, Professor in Frankfort-on-the-Oder (d. 1581), who denounced Melanch-
thon as a patriarch of all heretics, and praised Luther as the sun among the dim stars of the
old fathers ; and Christopher Korner, Professor in Frankfort-on-the-Oder, a friend of Chytrseus,
but unfortunate in his children, who sunk into the lowest vices (G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 222).
310 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
The first attempts at union were made at the conferences in Frank
fort, 1558 ; Naumbnrg, 1561 ; Altenburg, 1568 ; Wittenberg, 1569 ;
Zerbst,1570; Dresden, 1571 ; but they utterly failed and increased the
dissension.
After the violent suppression of Crypto-Calvinism in Electoral Sax-
ony (1574), and the death of Flacius (1575) and some other untracta-
ble extremists, the work was resumed by the Elector and other Princes.
Theological conferences were again held at Maulbronn (1575), Lich-
tenberg (1576), and Torgau (1576). Three forms of agreement were
prepared, which, though not satisfactory, served as a basis for the
Formula of Concord. The first is the Swabian and Saxon Formula,
written by Andrese (1574), and revised by Chemnitz and Chytrseus
(1575).1 The second is the Maulbronn Formula, prepared by the
Swabian divines Lucas Osiander and Balthasar Bidembach (Nov. 14,
1575), and approved by a convent of Lutheran Princes in the Cloister
of Maulbronn (Jan. 19, 1576).2 The former was found too lengthy,
the latter too brief. Hence on the basis of both a third form was
prepared which combined their merits, but omitted the honorable
mention of the name of Melanchthon. This is the c Torgau JBooJcJ
consisting of twelve articles.3 It was mainly the work of Andrese and
Chemnitz, and completed by a convention of eighteen Lutheran di-
vines at the Castle of Hartenfels, at Torgau, June 7, 1576. It was
sent by the Elector Augustus to all the Lutheran Princes for exami-
nation and revision. It was closely scrutinized by twenty conventions
of theologians held within three months, and elicited twenty-five vota,
mostly favorable ; even Heshusius and Wigand, the oracles of ortho-
doxy, were pleased, except that they wished an express condemnation
of Melanchthon and other ' authors and patrons of corruptions.3
At last the present Formula of Concord was completed, on the basis
1 Schwabisch-Sachsische Concordie, Formula Suevica et Saxonica, or Formula Concordia
inter Suevicas et Saxonicas JEcclesi as, published from MS., in the original and revised form,
by Heppe, Geschichte des Deutschen Protest.Vol. III., Beilagen, pp. 75-166, and 166-325.
They were preceded by six sermons of Andrese (1573). Likewise republished by Heppe.
2 See Heppe, Vol. III. pp. 76 sqq.
3 The 'ToRGiscHB BUCK,* or * Torgisch Bedenken, ivelchergestalt oder massen vermb'ge
Gottes Worts die eingerissene Spaltungen zwischen den Theologen Augsburgischer Confession
christlich verglichen und beigelegt werden mb'chten, anno 1576.' It was republished by Sem-
ler, with Preface and notes, Halle, 1760, but much better by Heppe, Marburg, 1857; second
edition, 1860.
§ 45. THE FOBM OF CONCORD, 1577. 311
of the Torgau Book, by six learned divines — Andrese (of Tubingen),
Chemnitz (of Brunswick), Selnecker (of Leipzig), Musculus (of Frank-
fort-on-the-Oder), Cornerus, or Korner (also of Frankfort), and Ohy-
trseus (of Kostock)— who met in March and May, 1577, in the Cloister
of Bergen, near Magdeburg, by order of the Elector of Saxony. Hence
it is also called ' The Bergen Formula? * The Preface was written two
years later by the same authors, in the name of the Lutheran Princes,
in two conventions at Jiiterbock, January and June, 1579. Three years
elapsed before the new symbolical book was signed and solemnly pub-
lished, by order of Augustus, at Dresden, June 25, 1580, the fiftieth
anniversary of the Augsburg Confession, together with the other Lu-
theran symbols, in one volume, called the < BOOK OF CONCORD,' which
superseded all similar collections.2 The Elector Augustus celebrated
the completion of the work, which cost him so much trouble and
money, by a memorial coin representing him in full armor on the
storm-tossed ship of the church.3
The Formula of Concord, like the three preparatory drafts on which
it is based, was first composed in the German language, and published,
with the whole Book of Concord, at Dresden, 1580. The Latin text
was imperfectly prepared by Lucas Osiander, and appeared in the Latin
Goncordia, at Leipzig, 1580 ; then it was materially improved by Sel-
necker for his separate German-Latin edition of the Formula (not the
Book) of Concord, Leipzig, 1582 ; and was again revised by a convent
of Lutheran divines at Quedlinburg, 1583, under the direction of Mar-
tin Chemnitz. In this last revision it was published in the first aur
ihentic Latin edition of the Book of Concord, Leipzig, 1584, and has
1 Or, Das Bergische Buck. English writers usually call it 'Form of Concord,1 though
'Formula' is more correct.
8 See the titles on p. 220, and literary notices in Kollner, pp. 562 sqq. Andrese directed the
editing of the German Book of Concord, Glaser and Fuger read the proof. The manuscript
was deposited in the library of the chief church at Dresden, and hurned up with it July 19,
17CO. The first Latin Concordia (1 580) was superintended and edited,' though without proper
authority, by Selnecker ; the second edition (1584) was issued by authority of the Electors.
There are few separate editions of the Formula of Concord, the first by Selnecker, Lipz. 1582.
See Kollner, p. 561.
3 See a description in Penzel's Saxon. Numism. as quoted by Planck, Vol. VI. p. 689.
Augustus dismissed Andreas (1580), ostensibly with great honor and rich presents, but in
fact much displeased with the garrulus Suevus, who had spoken disrespectfully of his theo-
logical ignorance, had fallen out with Chemnitz and Selnecker, and made many enemies. See
a ML account in Heppe, Vol. IV. pp. 256-270.
VOL. I._X
312 THE CBEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
been recognized ever since as the received Latin text. It was also
translated into the Dutch, Swedish, and English languages, but seldom
separately published.1
§ 46. THE FOEM OF CONCORD, CONCLUDED.
Analysis and Criticism.
The Formula of Concord consists of two parts — the Epitome and the
Solida JSepetitio et Declaratio. Both treat, in twelve articles, of the
same matter — the first briefly, the other extensively. They begin with
the anthropological doctrines of original sin and freedom of the will ;
next pass on to the soteriological questions concerning justification, good
works, the law and the gospel, the third use of the law ; then to the
eucharist and the person of Christ; and end with foreknowledge and
election. This order is characteristic of the Lutheran system, as dis-
tinct from the Calvinistic, which begins with the Scriptures, or with
God and the eternal decrees. The most important articles are those
on the Lord's Supper and the Person of Christ, which teach the pe-
culiar features of the Lutheran creed, viz., consubstantiation, the com-
munication of the properties of the divine nature to the human nature
of Christ, and the ubiquity of Christ's body.
The Epitome contains all that is essential It first states the con-
troversy {status controversies), then the true doctrine ( tffirmativa), and,
last, it condemns the error (negativa). In the Solid Repetition and
Declaration this division is omitted ; but the articles are more fully
explained and supported by ample quotations from the Scriptures, the
fathers, the older Lutheran Confessions, and the private writings of
Dr. Luther, which swell it to about five times the size of the Epitome.
Each part is preceded by an important introduction, which lays
down the fundamental Protestant principle that the Canonical Scrip-
tures are the only rule of faith and doctrine,2 and fixes the number
of (nine) symbolical books to be hereafter acknowledged in the Lu-
1 See the authorized Latin text of the Epitome, with a new English translation, in Vol. III.
|>p. 93 sqq. An English Version of the Formula from the German text appeared in The,
Christian Book of Concord; or, Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, New
Market, Va., 1 851, 2d ed., 1 854-. It professes to be literal, but is very stiff and unidiomatic.
9 ''Die emigre Reg el und Richtschnur (unica regula et norma*), nach welcher alleLehren und
Lehrer gerichtet und geurtheilt werden sollen.1 Comp. Psa. cxix. 105 ; Gal. i. 8. The extent
of the Canon, however, is not defined, as in several Reformed Confessions, and the question of
the Apocrvnha of the Old Testament is left open.
§ 46. THE FORM OF CONCORD, CONCLUDED. 313
theran Church, not as judges, but as witnesses and expositions of the
Christian faith ; namely, the three oecumenical Symbols (the Apostles',
the Nicene, and the Athanasian), the Unaltered Augsburg Confession,1
the Apology of the Confession, the Articles of Smalcald, the Smaller
and Larger Catechisms of Luther,2 and the Formula of Concord. The
Scriptures contain the credenda, the things to be believed ; the Sym-
bols the credita, the things that are believed. Yet the second part of
the Formula quotes Dr. Luther, 'jpice sanct&que memoricej as freely,
and with at least as much deference to his authority, as Eoman Catho-
lics quote the fathers. Melanchthon, the author of the fundamental
Confession of the Lutheran Church, is never named, but indirectly con-
demned ; and as to poor Zwingli, he is indeed mentioned, but only to
be held up to pious horror for his 'blasphemous allceosis? * Thus the
supremacy of the Bible is maintained in principle, but Luther is re-
garded as its regulative and almost infallible expounder.
We now proceed to give a summary of the Formula.
Art. I. OF ORIGINAL SIN. — It is not the moral essence, or substance,
or nature of man (as Flacius taught with the old Manichseans), but a
radical corruption of that nature, which can never be entirely eradi-
cated in this world (against the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian heresies).
Art. II. OF FREE WILL. — Man, in consequence of Adam's fall, has
lost the divine image, is spiritually blind, disabled, dead, and even
hostile to God, and can contribute nothing towards his conversion,
which is the work of the Holy Spirit alone, through the means of
grace. The Formula, following Luther, uses stronger terms on the
slavery of the will and total depravity than the Calvinistic Confessions.
It compares the unconverted man to a column of salt, Lot's wife, a
statue without mouth or eyes, a dead stone, block and clod,4 and de-
1 *ZH"e erste ungeanderte Augsb. Confession9 (Augustanam illam primam et non mutatam
Confessionem). The Preface (pp. 13, U) rejects the Altered Augsburg Confession (of 1540),
if it be understood as teaching another doctrine of the Lord's Supper.
2 These are called the 'LaienlibeV (laicorum biblia, the layman's Bible), 'darin alles
begriffen, was in heiliger Schrift weitlauftig gehandelt, und einem Christenmenschen zu wissen
vonndthen istS
3 Sol.DecLArt.VIII.p. 678 (ed.Muller): 'Die gvtteslasterliche att&osis Zwinglii,' whidi
Dr. Luther condemned lals des Teufels Larve bis in den Abgrund der Ho'llenS
* Solida Declaratio, Art. II. § 24 (p. 662 ed. Rech., p. 59-t ed. Miiller): ' Antequam homo
per Spiritum Sanctum iJluminatur,convertitur, regeneratur et trahitur . . . ad conversionem aut
regenerationem suam nihil inchoare, operari, aut codperari potest, nee plus quam lapis, truncus,
aut Kmus (so wenig als ein Stein oder Block oder Thori)'. Thomasius and Stahl disapprove of
314 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
nies to him the least spark of spiritual power.1 He can not even ac-
cept the gospel (which is the work of pure grace), but he may reject it,
and thereby incur damnation.
This article condemns the fatalism of the Stoics and Manichseans,-
the anthropological heresies of the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, but
also and especially the Synergism of Melanchthon and the Philippists.
The chief framers of the Formula — Andreas, Chemnitz, Selnecker,
and Chytraeus — were at first in favor of Synergism, which would have
been more consistent with Article XI. ; the Swabian-Saxon Ooncordia,
drawn up by Chemnitz and Chytrseus, and the Torgau Book actually
contained synergistic passages.2 But they were omitted or exchanged
for others, and consistency was sacrificed to veneration for Luther.
There is an obvious and irreconcilable antagonism between Art. II.
and Art. XI. They contain not simply opposite truths to be recon-
ciled by theological science, but contradictory assertions, which ought
never to be put into a creed. The Formula adopts one part of Luther's
book De servo arbitrio (1525), and rejects the other, which follows
with logical necessity. It is Augustinian — yea, hyper-Augustinian and
hyper-Calvinistic in the doctrine of human depravity, and anti- Augus-
tinian in the doctrine of divine predestination. It indorses the anthro-
pological premise, and denies the theological conclusion. If man is by
nature like a stone and block, and unable even to accept the grace of
these expressions, and Luthardt (Lehre v.freien Witten, p. 272) admits, at least, that they
are unfortunately chosen (unglucklich gewahlf). Fr. H. B. Frank defends them.
1 Ibid. Art. II. § 7 (p. 656 ed. Rech. , p. 589 ed. Miiller) : . . Shomo ad bonumprorsus corruptus
et mortuus sit, ita ut in hominis natura post lapsum ante regen&rationem ne sdntittula quidem
spiritualium virium (nicht ein Funklein der geistlichen Krafte) reliqua manserit aut restet,
quibus Hie ex se ad gratiam Dei prceparare se aut oblatam gratiam apprehendere, aut eius
gratia (ex sese et per se) capax esse possit, aut se ad gratiam applicare aut accommodare, aut
viribus suis propriis aliquid ad conversionem suam vel ex toto vel ex dimidia vel ex minima
parte conferre, agere, operari aut codperari (ex se ipso tanquam ex semet ipso) possit (oder aus
seinen eigenen Kraften etwas zu seiner Bekefirung, weder zum ganzen noch zum batten oder
zu einigem dem wenigsten oder geringsten Theil^ helfen^ thun, wirken oder mitwirken vermSge^
von ihm selbst, ah von ihm selbsi). . . . Inde adeo naturale liberum arbitrium, ratione cor-
ruptarum virium et natures su<e depravatce, duntaxat ad ea, quce Deo displicent et adversan-
tur, activum et efficax est.' This and similar statements are followed by quotations from
Dr. Luther, where he compares the natural man to 'a column of salt, Lot's wife, a clod and
stone, a dead statue without eyes or mouth.' All he said against Erasmus, and later, in his
Commentary on Genesis, about free will, is indorsed. Flacius inferred from the same teacher
his Manichsean error, which the Formula condemns in Art. I.
* See these passages in Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 486, note 24 ; Heppe, Der Text der Bergischen
Conrordienformel verglichen^ etc. ; Luthardt, Lehre vom freien Willen, pp. 262 sgq, Comp.
also the remarks of Planck, Vol. VI. pp. 718 SQCU
§ 46. THE FORM OF CONCORD, CONCLUDED. 315
God (as Art. II. teaches), he can only be converted by an act of al-
mighty power and irresistible grace (which Art. XL denies). If some
men are saved, without any co-operation on their part, while others,
with the same inability and the same opportunities, are lost, the differ-
ence points to a particular predestination and the inscrutable decree of
God. On the other hand, if God sincerely wills the salvation of all
men (as Art. XL teaches), and yet only a part are actually saved, there
must be some difference in the attitude of the saved and the lost to-
wards converting grace (which is denied in Art. II.).
The Lutheran system, then, to be consistent, must rectify itself, and
develop either from Art. II. in the direction of Augustinianism and
Calvinism, or from Art. XL in the direction of Synergism and Ar-
minianism. The former would be simply returning to Luther's orig-
inal doctrine, which he never recalled, though he may have modified
it a little; the latter is the path pointed out by Melanchthon, and
adopted more or less by some of the ablest modern Lutherans.1 In
either case the second article needs modification. It uses the language
of feeling rather than sober reflection, and gives the rhetorical ex-
pressions of subjective experience the dignity of symbolical statement.
We can, indeed, not feel too strongly the sinfulness of sin and the
awful corruption of our hearts. Nevertheless, God's image in man is
not lost or exchanged for Satan's image, buc only disfigured, disabled,
and lying in ruins. Man is, indeed, in his prevailing inclination, a
slave of sin, yet susceptible of the influences of divine grace, and re-
mains moral and responsible in accepting or rejecting the gospel, be-
fore as well as after conversion. His reason, his conscience, his sense
of sin, his longing for redemption and for peace with God, his prayers,
his sacrifices, and all the ' testimonies animce naturaliter christiance?
bear witness with one voice to his divine origin, his divine destina-
tion, and his adaptation to the Christian salvation.2 But on the other
hand there are innumerable mysteries of Providence in the order of
nature as well as of grace, and inequalities in the distribution of gifts
1 As Thomasius, Stahl, Harless, Hofmann, Luthardt, Kahnis. See Luthardt, Die Lehre
vomfreien Willen, pp. 378 sqq.
2 Well says Goethe—
''War* nteht das Auge sonnen1uxftt
Wie konnte es das Licht erblickent
LeW nicht in uns des Gottes eigne Kraft,
Wie WnnV uns Gottliches entzuckenf
THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
and opportunities, which baffle solution in this present world, and can
only be traced to the inscrutable wisdom of God. The human mind
has not been able as yet satisfactorily to set forth the harmony of God's
sovereignty and man's responsibility.
Art. III. OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. — Christ is our righteousness,
not according to the divine nature alone (Andrew Osiander), nor ac-
cording to the human nature alone (Stancar), but the whole Christ.
God justifies us out of pure grace, without regard to antecedent, pres-
ent, or subsequent works or merit, by imputing to us the righteousness
of the obedience of Christ Faith alone is the medium and instrument
by which we apprehend Christ. Justification is a declaratory or foren-
sic act— a sentence of absolution from sin, not an infusion of righteous-
ness (Osiander).
Art. IY. OF GOOD "WoBKs, — Good works must always follow true
faith, but they are neither necessary to salvation (Major), nor dangerous
or injurious to salvation (Amsdorf). Salvation is of free grace alone,
apprehended by faith.
Art. Y. OF THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL. — The object of the law is to
reprove sin and to preach repentance ; the gospel (in its specific sense)
is a joyful message, the preaching of Christ's atonement and satisfac-
tion for all sins.
Art. YI. OF THE THIBD USE OF THE LAW — i. e,, its obligation to be-
lievers, as distinct from its civil or political, and its pedagogic or moral
use in maintaining order, and leading to a conviction of sin. Believers,
though redeemed from the curse and restraint of the law, are bound to
obey the law with a free and willing spirit Antinomianism is re-
jected.
Art VII. OF THE LOED'S SUPPEB* — The most important controversy
and chief occasion of the Formula — hence the length of this Article in
the second part. It sets forth clearly and fully the doctrine of con-
substantiation (as it is usually called, in distinction from the Romish
transubstantiation), i e., of the co-existence of two distinct yet insep-
arable substances in the sacrament It is the doctrine of the real and
substantial presence of the true body and blood of Christ in, with,
and under the elements of bread aud wine (in, cum, et sub pane et
vino), and the oral manducation of both substances by unbelieving as
well as believing communicants, though with opposite effects. The
§ 46. THE FOEM OF CONCORD, CONCLUDED. 317
sacramental union of Christ's real body and blood with, the elements
is not an impanation or local inclusion, nor a mixture of two sub-
stances, nor a permanent (extra-sacramental) conjunction, but it is il-
local, supernatural, unmixed, and confined to the sacramental transac-
tion or actual use.1 Nor is it effected by priestly consecration, but by
the omnipotent power of God, and the word and institution of Christ.
The body of Christ is eaten with the mouth by all communicants, but
the notion of a Capernaitic or physical eating with the teeth is indig-
nantly rejected as a malignant and blasphemous slander of the sac-
ramentarians.2
The Formula condemns the Komish dogma of transubstantiation,
the sacrifice of the mass, and the withdrawal of the cup from the laity,
but with equal or greater emphasis the Keformed and Melanchthonian
(Crypto-Oalvinistic) theory of a spiritual real presence and fruition of
Christ by faith, or by believers only, without making a distinction be-
tween Zwinglians and Calvinists, except that the latter are called * the
most pernicious of all sacramentarians.' 3
Art. VIII. OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST. — This article gives scholastic
support to the preceding article on the eucharistic presence, and con-
tains an addition to the Lutheran creed. It teaches the communicatio
idiomatum and the ubiquity of Christ's body. It raised the private
1 *NiMl habet rationem sacramenti extra usum^ seu actionem divinitus tnstitutam' (Sol. DecL
p. 663). Gerhard and the later Lutheran theologians describe the presence as sacramentalis,
vera et realis, substantialis, mystic a, supernaturalis et incomprehensibilis, and distinguish it
from the prcesentia gloriosa (in heaven), hypostatica (of the \oyog in the human nature),
spiritualis (operative or virtuaKs^^Jigurativa (imaginativa, symbolica). It is a irapovaia,
not an airovata (absence), nor Ivoveia (inexistence), nor wvovaia (co-existence in the sense
of coalescence), nor percvyia (transubstantiation). They reject the term consubstantiation in
the sense of impanation or incorporation into bread, or physical coalescence and fusion. The
Formula itself does not use the term.
a And yet Dr. Luther himself unequivocally taught the literal mastication of Christ's body.
He gave it as the sum of his belief, to which he 'would adhere though the world should col-
lapse/ that Christ's body was * ausgetheilt, gegessen und mit den Zahnen zerbissen'* (BrieJ *e,
ed. by De Witte, Vol. IV. p. 572, comp. p. 569). He instructed Melanchthon to insist on
this in the conference he had with Bucer in Cassel, Dec. 1534 ; but Melanchthon, though not
emancipated from Luther's view at that time, declined to shoulder it as his own, and began
to change his ground on the eucharistic question. Corp. Ref. VoL II. p. 822. Comp. Schmidt,
Mel. p. 319 ; Ebrard, Abendmah!,VoL II. pp. 375 sqq.
3 Planck (Vol. VI. pp. 732 sqq.) charges the Formula with willful misrepresentation of
Calvin's view, which he had so clearly, distinctly, and repeatedly set forth, especially in his
tracts against Westphal, and which had since been embodied in the Confessions of the Re-
formed churches. Thomasius, Stahl, and other orthodox Lutherans, freely admit the mate-
rial difference between Calvin and Zwingli in the theory of the eucharist.
318 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
opinions and speculations of Luther, Brentius, and Chemnitz on these
topics to the authority of a dogma. Some regard this as the crowning
excellence of the Formula;1 others, even in the Lutheran communion,
as its weakest and most assailable point.2 It was certainly very unwise,
as history has shown, to introduce the scholastic subtleties of meta-
physical theology into a public confession of faith.
The Formula derives from the personal union of the two natures in
Christ (unio hypostatica, QY personalis) the communion of natures (con^
munio naturarum), from the communion of natures the communica-
tion of properties or attributes (communicatio idiomatum, a term used
first by the scholastics), and from the communication of properties the
omnipresence or ubiquity of Christ's body. The controversy between
the Lutheran and Reformed, who both professedly stand on the com-
mon theanthropic Christology of Chalcedon, refers to the nature and
extent of the communication of properties, and especially to the ubiq-
uity of Christ's body derived therefrom.
The Formula (in the Second Part) distinguishes three kinds of the
communicatio idiomatum, which were afterwards more fully ana-
lyzed, defined, and designated by the Lutheran scholastics of the sev-
enteenth century.3
1 My Mend, Dr. Krauth, goes so far as to say (L c. p. 316) : * The doctrine of the person
of Christ presented in the formula rests upon the snblimest series of inductions in the history
of Christian doctrine. In all confessional history there is nothing to he compared with it in
the combination of exact exegesis, of dogmatic skill, and of fidelity to historical development.
Fifteen centuries of Christian thought culminate in it.' But in his lengthy exposition he
does not even mention the important difference between the Swabian and Saxon schools, nor
the various forms of the communicatio tdiomatum, and evades the real difficulty by resolving,
apparently (p. 318), the communication of divine properties into an efficacious manifestation
of the Godhead in and through the assumed humanity of Christ— which has never been dis-
puted by Reformed divines.
2 Even Lnthardt admits at least the artificial construction of the Christology of the Formula,
and its inconsistency with the historical realness of the picture of Christ in the Gospels (Com-
pend. der Dogmatik, p. 1U ; comp. also Kahnis, Luth. Dogmatik^Ql. III. p. 338 sq.)« The
modern Lutheran Kenoticists, Thomasius, Hofmann (Luthardt inclines to them, p. 155)— not
to speak of the extreme form to which Gess carried the KevuetG — virtually depart from the
Formula of Concord, which pronounces it a * blasphemous perversion' to explain Matt,
xxviii. 18 (' all power is given to me,' etc.) in the sense that Christ had ever laid aside or
abandoned his almighty power in the state of humiliation (Epit., at the close of Art. VI II.).
- We anticipate, for the sake of clearness, from the later orthodox writers the names of the
three genera. The substance is already in the Formula, and in the treatise of Chemnitz, De
duabtts naturis in Christo^ lf>80. For a fuller exposition, with ample quotations from Chem-
nitz, John Gerhard, Hafenreffer, Hutter, Calov, Quenstedt, Konig, Baier, Hollaz, see Hein-
rich Schmid's Dogmatik der evang. lutherischen Kirche (3d ed, 1847), pp. 252 sqq. ; comp. also
Luthardt. pp. 144 sqq., and Kahnis, Vol. II. pp. 335 sqq.
§ 46. THE FOBM OF CONCORD, CONCLUDED. 319
1. The genus idiomaticum, by which the attributes of one or the
other nature are communicated to the whole person. Thus it is said
that c the Son of God was made of the seed of David, according to
the flesh5 (Eom. i. 3), that ' Christ was put to death in the flesh/ and
that 'he suffered in the flesh5 (1 Pet. iii. 18; iv. I).1 Here Luther's
warning is quoted against Zwingli5s allceosis, as 'a mask of the devil.'
2. The genus apotelesmaticum, or the KOtvwvta aTrorfXecr/iarwv/2 which
has reference to the execution of the office of Christ : the communica-
tion of redeeming acts of the whole person to one of the two natures.
Christ always operates in and through both. Thus Christ, neither as
God nor man alone, but as God-man, is our Mediator, Redeemer, King,
High-Priest, Shepherd, etc. He shed his blood according to his hu-
man nature, but the divine nature gave it infinite value (1 Cor. xv. 3 :
'Christ died for our sins;5 Gal.i.4; iii. 17; 1 John iii. 8; Luke ix. 56).
3. The genus majestaticum, or auchematicwn* i. e., the communica-
tion of the attributes of the divine nature to the assumed humanity of
Christ. * The human nature of Christ,3 says the Formula, c over and
above its natural, essential, and permanent human properties, has also
received special, high, great, supernatural, inscrutable, ineffable, heav-
enly prerogatives and pre-eminence in majesty, glory, power, and might,
above all that can be named (Eph. i. 21).54 . . . 'This majesty of the
human nature was hidden and restrained in the time of the humilia-
tion. But now, since the form of a servant is laid aside, the majesty
of Christ appears fully, efficiently, and manifestly before all the saints
in heaven and on earth, and we also in the life to come shall see his
1 This genus was subsequently subdivided into three species, corresponding to the con-
cretum of the divine nature, the concretum of the human nature, and the concretum of both
natures, of which the idiomata are predicated, viz., (a) iSunroiijffis, or ouwiWts, i. e.,' appro-
priatio, quando idiomata humana de concrete divines natures enuntianturj Acts iii. 15; xx. 28;
1 Cor. ii. 8 ; Gal. ii. 20 ; Psa. xlv. 8. (6) Kowtuvia r&v Stt'wv,' communic. divinorum idioma-
tum, quando de persona verbi incarnati, ab humana natura denominate idiomata divina ob
unionem personalem enuntiantur,' John vi. 62 ; viii. 58 ; 1 Cor. xv. 47. (c) 'AvriSoms, or
ovvafjiQoTepiffiJLog, c alternatio s. reciprocatio, qua tarn divina quam humana idiomata de con-
creto persona sive de Christo, ab utraque natura denominate, prcedicantur,' Heb. xiii. 8;
Rom. ix. fi ; 2 Cor. xiii. 4 ; 1 Pet. iii. 18. See Schmid, p. 258.
a The expression is borrowed from John of Damascus. d7rorlX«<r/*a means properly com-
pletion of the work (consummatio operis), effect, result ; but it is here used for each action in
the threefold office of Christ.
3 From av-xnua, gloria. This genus is also called /fcXriWic, virtptywis, perddomg,
a<n*o3'£0(T£a> SsoiroirjtnQ, unctio.
* Sol. Decl. Art. VIII. p. 685 Ced. Miillerl
320 THE CREEDS OF CH&ISTENDOM.
glory face to face (John xvii. 24). For this reason, there is and re-
mains in Christ only one divine omnipotence, power, majesty, and
glory, which is the property of the divine nature alone; but this
shines forth, exhibits, and manifests itself fully, yet spontaneously, in,
with, and through the assumed, exalted human nature in Christ ; pre-
cisely as to shine and to burn are not two properties of iron, but the
power to shine and to burn is the property of the fire — but since the
fire is united with the iron, it exhibits and manifests its power to shine
and to burn in, with, and through this red-hot iron ; so that also the
red-hot iron, through this union, has the power to shine and to burn,
without a change of the essence and of the natural properties of the
fire or of the iron.' l
The Lutheran scholastics make here a distinction between the opera-
tive attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence) and the quies-
cent attributes (eternity, infinitude) : all were communicated to Christ
for inhabitation and possession, but only the operative for use —
umrpatio (Matt, xxviii. 18 ; John xvii. 2, 5, 27 ; Col. ii. 3).
4. Strict logic would require a fourth genus (genus
namely, the communication of the attributes of the human nature to
the divine nature. But this is rejected by the Formula and the Lu-
theran scholastics, on the ground that the divine nature is unchange-
able, and received no accession nor detraction from the incarnation.2
This is a palpable inconsistency,3 and is fatal to the third genus. For
if there is any real communication of the properties of the two natures,
it must be mutual ; the one is the necessary counterpart of the other.
If the human nature is capable of the divine, the divine nature must
be capable of the human ; and if, on the other hand, the divine nature
is incapable of the human, the human nature must be incapable of
the divine. Luther felt this, and boldly uses such expressions as * Q-od
suffered,7 cGrod died,3 which were familiar to the Monophysites.4
1 P. 689.
2 Sol. DecL p. 684 : 'Was die gdttliche Natur in Christo anlanget, weil bei Gott keineVeran-
derwg ist (Jac.1,17)jis£ seiner gSttlichen Natur dwrch die Menschwerdung an ihrem Wesen
und Eigenschaften nichts ab-oder zugegangen, ist in oder fur sick dadurch weder gemindert
nock gemehret.' This raises the question how far the unchangeableness of God is affected by
the incarnation, about which Dr.Dorner has written some profound articles in th&JahrbQcher
fur Deutsche Theologie, 1856 and 1858.
3 As Thomasius and Kahnis (Vol. HI. p. 339) admit.
* Weil Gottheit und MenschheitJ he says (Vol. TOT, p. 204, Erl. ed.), 'Eine Person ist,
§ 46. THE FOBM OF CONCORD, CONCLUDED.
The battle-ground between the Lutheran and the Eeformed Is the
genus mcyestaticum, for which John of Damascus had prepared the
way. But just here the Formula is neither quite clear nor consist-
ent. It was unable to harmonize the two different Lutheran Chris-
tologies represented among the authors by Andrese and Chemnitz.1
It teaches, on the one hand (to guard against the charge of Eutychian-
ism and Monophysitism), that the attributes of the divine nature (as
omnipotence, eternity, infinitude, omnipresence, omniscience) ' can never
become (intrinsically and jper se) the attributes of the human nature/
and that the attributes of the human nature (as corporeality, limita-
tion, circumscription, passibility, mortality, hunger, thirst) 'can never
become the attributes of the divine nature.'2 (This quite agrees with
the doctrine of Chemnitz and of the Eeformed theologians.) But, on
the other hand (in opposition to Nestorianism and the c sacramentarians/
as the Reformed are called), the Formula asserts that, by virtue of the
hypostatic or personal union of the two natures and the communion
of natures, one nature may, nevertheless (by derivation and depend-
ency), partake of the properties of the other, or at least that the human
nature, while retaining its inherent properties, may and does receive
(as peculiar prerogatives, or as dona swperaddita) the attributes of
divine glory, majesty, power, omniscience, and omnipresence.3 Thus
God is really man, and man is really God ; Mary is truly the mother
of God, since she conceived and brought forth the Son of God ; the
so giebt die Schrift um sokher personlichen Einigkeit willen auch alles, was der Menschheit
widerfahrt, der Gottheit, und wiederum. Und ist auch aho in der Wahrheit. Denn da musst
du ja sagen: Die Person kidet, stirbt; nun ist die Person wahrhaftiger Gott: durum ist's
recht geredet : Gottes Sohn kidet.'
1 See above, pp. 290-294.
* JSpit. VIII. (p. 545, ed. MiiUer) : c Wir glauben, lehren und bekennen, dass die gottliche und
menschliche Natur nicht in ein Wesen vermenget, keine in die andere verwandelt, sondern ein
jede ihre wesentliche Eigenschaften behalte, WELCHE DER ANDERN NATUR EIGENSCHAFTEN
NIMMERMEHR WERDEN. Die Eigenschoften gotilicher Natur sind: attmachtig, ewig, etc.,
sein, wekhe der menschlichen Natur Eigenschaften nimmermehr werden. Die JSigenschaften
menschlicher Natur sind: ein leiblich Geschdpfoder Crealur sein, etc., wekhe der gdttlichen
Natur Eigenschaften nimmermehr werden.1 Comp. the Sol. Decl. Art. VIIL
3 JEpit. Vin. (p. 545) : c Sondern hie ist die hdchste Gemeinschaft, welche Gott mit dem Men-
schen wahrhaftig hat9 aus wekher persSnlichen Vereinigung und der daraus erfolgenden hochsten
und unaussprechlichen Gemeinschaft attes herfleusst, was menschlich von Gott, und gottlich
vom Menschen Christo gesaget und geglaubet wird; wie sokhe Vereinigung und Gemeinschaft
derNaturen die altenKirchenlehrer durch die Gleichniss eines feurigen Eisens, wie auch der
Vereinigung Leibes und der Seekn im Menschen erklaret haben.1 The Sol. Decl. repeats the
same at greater length.
322 THE CREEDS OP CHRISTENDOM.
Son of God truly suffered, though according to the property of his
human nature; Christ as man, not only as God, knows all things, is
able to do all things, is present to all creatures, and was so from the
moment of the incarnation. For (as the Solid Declaration expressly
states) Christ, according to his humanity, received his divine Majesty
* when he was conceived in the womb and became man, and when the
divine and human natures were united with each other.' That is to
say, the incarnation of God was at the same time a deification of man
in Christ (This was the Swabian theory of Brentius and Andrese.)
As regards the ubiquity in particular, the Formula is again incon-
sistent. The Epitome favors the doctrine of the absolute ubiquity of
Christ's body in all creatures (as taught by Luther, Brentius, Andreas),
and says that Christ, cnot only as God, but also as man, is present to
all creatures ... is omnipresent^ and all things are possible and known
to him ;' the Solid Declaration, on the contrary, asserts only the relative
ubiquity or multivolipresence (as taught by Chemnitz) ; but neutralizes
this again by quoting, with full approbation, Luther's strongest passages
in favor of absolute ubiquity.1 Hence there arose a fruitless contro-
versy on the subject among the orthodox Lutherans themselves, as has
been already stated.
The Formula, therefore, is not a real union of the Swabian and
Saxon types, but only a series of concessions and counter-concessions,
and a mechanical juxtaposition of discordant sentences from both par
ties.2 The later orthodoxy did not settle the question, and both the-
ories continued to find their advocates. Moreover, the Formula doei
not answer and refute, but simply denies the objections of the Reformed
divines, and falls back upon the incomprehensibility of the mystery of
1 The words * doss Ckristus auch nach und mit seiner assumirten Menschheit gegenwartig
sein Kb*NNE und auch sei, wo ER WILL,' clearly express the multwoliprcesentia of Chemnitz
and the Saxons. Nevertheless, Chemnitz, to his own regret, could not prevent the wholesale
indorsement and quotation of Luther's views — that wherever Christ's divinity is, there is also
his humanity ; that he may he and is in all places wherever God is ; that the ascension is
figurative ; that the right hand of God is every where, etc. Hence it is scarcely correct when
Kahnis says (Vol. II. p. 581) that the compromise of the Formula leans to the side of Chem-
nitz. Compare the thorough discussion of Dorner, JEntuncklungsgeschichte, Vol. II. pp. 710
sqq., who clearly shows that Chemnitz made several fatal concessions to the Swahian Chris-
tology. Hence the opposition of Heshusius and the Helmstadt Lutherans (see p. 293).
* Dorner, VoL II. p. 771, 'Die Vermittfangsversuche des I. Andrea und Chemnitz erreich-
ten in Betreffdes eigentUchen Gegensatzes zwischen den Schwaben und Niederdeutschen keine
innere Einigvng, sondern nur eine Vereinigung von disharmonischen Satzen von beiden Seiten
her in einem Bitch. Die Folge war daber mckt Eintracht* sondern vielseitige Zwietracht.1
§ 46. THE FOEM OF CONCORD, CONCLUDED. 323
the hypostatic union, which is declared to be the highest mystery next
to the Trinity, and the one ' on which our whole consolation, life, and
salvation depend.5
As regards the states of humiliation (exinanitio) and exaltation
(exaltatio), the Formula, in the passages already quoted, teaches the
full possession (jcrr^e), and a partial or occult use (x/>i?<ne), of the
divine attributes by Christ from the moment of his existence as a
man. His human nature, and not the divine pre-existent Logos, is
understood to be the subject of the humiliation in the classical pas-
sage Phil. ii. 7, on which the distinction of two states is based. Con-
sequently the two states refer properly only to the human nature, and
consist in a difference of outward condition and visible manifestation.
The humiliation is a partial concealment of the actual use (a Kpfyt?
Xpri<r£Ci>e) of the divine attributes communicated to the human nature
at the incarnation ; the exaltation is a full manifestation of the same.
As to the extent of the concealment or actual use, there arose after-
wards, as we have seen already, a controversy between the Giessen
and Tubingen divines, but was never properly settled, nor can it be
settled on the christological basis of the Formula.1 The modern
school of Lutheran Kenoticists depart from it by assuming a real self-
renunciation (KEVWO-I e) of the divine Logos in the incarnation, but there-
by they endanger the immutability of the Deity, and interrupt the
continuity of the divine government of the world through the Logos
during the state of humiliation.
We add some general remarks on the Christology of the Formula,
as far as it differs from the Reformed Christolog} . After renewed
investigation of this difficult problem, I have been confirmed in the
conviction that the exegetical argument, which must ultimately decide
the case, is in favor of the Reformed and against the Lutheran theory ;
but I cheerfully admit that the latter represents a certain mystical and
1 The Formula teaches the Krijtnc with a partial K.eva>me xp^(«a>£, and so far seems to favor
the later Giessen view, although the issue was not yet fairly before the authors. Sol. Decl.
Art. VIII. (p. 767 ed. Rech,, p. 680 ed. Muller) : 'Earn, vero majestatem statim in sua con-
ceptione etiam in utero matris habuit, sed ut apostolus loquitur (Phil. ii. 7), se ipsum exinanivit,
eamgue. ut I). Luthervs docet, in statu suce humiliationis SECRETO habuit, negue earn semper^
sed QUOTIKS IPSI VISUM FUIT, usurpavitS An occasional use of the divine attributes during
the state of humiliation was expressly conceded by the Giessen divines ; they only denied the
constant and full (though secret) use contended for by the Tubingen school. See above, p.
295. The Lutheran scholastics were more on the side of the Giessen divines.
324: THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM:.
speculative element, which is not properly appreciated in the Oalvinistic
theology, and may act as a check upon Nestorian tendencies.
1. The scholastic refinements of the doctrine of the communicatio
idiomatum, and especially the ubiquity of the body, have no intrinsic
religious importance, and owe their origin to the Lutheran hypothesis
of the corporeal presence.1 They should, therefore, never have been
made an article of faith. A surplus of orthodoxy provokes skepticism.
2. The great and central mystery of the union of the divine and
human in Christ, which the Formula desires to uphold, is overstated
and endangered by its doctrine of the genus majestaticum, or the com-
munication of the divine attributes to the human nature of Christ.
This doctrine runs contrary to the a<rvyx^rc°£ an<^ arpfitrwe of the
Chalcedonian Creed. It leads necessarily — notwithstanding the sol-
emn protest of the Formula — to a Eutychian confusion and sequation
of natures ; for, according to all sound philosophy, the attributes are
not an outside appendix to the nature and independent of it, but in-
herent qualities, and together constitute the nature itself. Or else it
involves the impossible conception of a double set of divine attributes —
one that is original, and one that is derived or transferred.
3. The genus majestatioum can not be carried out, and breaks down
half-way. The divine attributes form a unit, and can not be separated.
If one is communicated, all are communicated. But how can eternity
ab ante (anfangslose Existen^ which is a necessary attribute of the
divine nature of Christ, be really communicated to a being born in
time, as Jesus of Nazareth undoubtedly was ? How can immensity be
transferred to a finite man ? The thing is impossible and contradic-
tory. An appeal to God's omnipotence is idle, for God can not sin,
nor err, nor die, nor do any thing that is inconsistent with his rational
and holy nature.
4. The doctrine has no support in the Scriptures ; for the passages
quoted in its favor speak of the divine human person, not of the hu-
man nature of Christ ; as, £ 1 am with you alway ;' ' all power is given
to me;'2 cin Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowl-
1 This is admitted, in part at least, by Dr. Stahl, one of the ahlest and most clear-headed
modem champions of orthodox Lutheranism, when he says : 'Die Lehre von der Allgegenwart
des Leibes Christi ist, abgesehen von der Anwendung auf das Abendmahl, YON OAJR. KEINEM
RELioiSsEN INTERESSE ' (Die lutherische Kirche umd die Union, Berlin, 1859, p. 185).
2 It is objected that omnipotence could not he given to the divine person of Christ, who had
§ 46. THE FORM OF CONCORD, CONCLUDED. 325
edge;' 'in Christ dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.3
And as to the state of humiliation, such passages as Luke ii. 52 ; Mark
xiii. 32 ; Heb. v. 8, 9, are inconsistent with the teaching of the Formula
that he was omniscient as man from the mother's womb.
5. The Christology of the Formula makes it impossible to construct
a truly human life of our Lord on earth, and turns it into a delusive
Christophany, or substitutes a crypto-pantheistic Christ for a personal,
historical Christ.
6. The familiar illustrations of the iron and fire, and body and soul,
used by the Formula, favor the Reformed rather than the Lutheran
theory ; for the iron does not transfer its properties to the fire, nor the
fire to the iron ; neither are the spiritual qualities of the soul, as cogni-
tion and volition, communicated to the body, nor the material proper-
ties and functions of the body, as weight and extension, eating and
drinking, to the soul : both are indeed most intimately and insepara-
bly connected — the soul dwells in the body, and the body is the organ
of the soul — but both remain essentially distinct. The same is the case
with the other illustration which is borrowed from the intercommuni-
cation or inhabitation (w^pi^p^rnqyimmanentia^perrneatio^ drcumin-
cessio) of the persons of the Holy Trinity ; for the peculiar properties
(?&a, c&orrjrcc) of the persons are not communicated or transferred —
paternity and being unbegotten (ayawqcrfa) belongs to the Father alone,
sonship (jevvrjma9JlUatio) to the Son alone, and procession (lK7rojoev<ne,
processio) to the Holy Ghost alone.
7. The ubiquity of the body is logically necessary for the hypothesis
of consubstantiation, and both stand and fall together. For the en-
charistic multipresence must be derived either from a perpetual mira-
cle (performed through the priestly consecration, or by the power of
the Holy Ghost, both of which the Lutherans reject),1 or from an in-
it from eternity essentially and of necessity, but only to his human nature. But this reason-
ing implies a virtual denial of the /cevw<rie, or laying aside of the pre-existent glory which
Christ had as God, and was going to take possession of again as God-man at his exaltation,
John xvii. 5 (ftoZaaov jit . . . ry 86%g $ el^ov irpb TOV TOV Koapov ( Ivai irapa trot).
1 According to the Komisb liturgy, the elements are literally changed or transubstantiated
into the very body and blood of Christ by the consecration of the priest when he repeats the
words of institution, Hoc est corpus mewrn; and hence the priest is blasphemously said to create
the body of Christ. But, according to the Oriental and Greek liturgies, the presence of the
body and blood of Christ is effected by the Benediction or Invocation of the Holy Ghost,
which follows the recital of the words of institution. Calvin and the Reformed liturgies
326 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
lierent quality of the body itself, which enables it to be present
ever and whenever it is actually partaken of by the mouth of the com-
municants.
8. But ubiquity proves too much for consubstantiation by extending
the eating of Christ to every meal (though this is inconsistently denied),
and depriving the eucharistic presence of all specific value. Yea, it is
fatal to it, and leads, we will not say to the Oalvinistic, but rather to a
crypto-pantheistic theory of the eucharist ; 1 for a body which is intrin-
sically and perpetually omnipresent must be so spiritual that it can
only be spiritually present and spiritually be partaken of by faith.2
9. Ubiquity is not only unscriptural, but antiscriptural, and conflicts
with the facts of Christ's local limitations while on earth, his descent
into Hades, his forty days after the resurrection, his ascension to heaven,
his visible return to judgment. We freely admit that Christ's glorified
body is not subject to the laws of earthly substances or confined to a
particular locality; it is a 'spiritual5 body (comp. 1 Cor. xv.), with its
own laws of rest and locomotion, which transcend our present knowl-
edge ; nevertheless it is and ever remains a body, as real as the resur-
rection body of saints which will be fashioned like unto it (<ri5ju/zo/o0ov
Tq7 o-oijucm rJjc So£i)c airov), and as heaven itself is real, from which
Christ will return fin like manner' as the apostles 'saw him go into
heaven.' The ubiquitarian exegesis here runs into an ultra-Zwinglian
spiritualism to save the literalism with which it started. But, feeling
its own weakness, it falls back again at last upon the literal understand-
ing of the i<m in the words of institution.
10. This first and last resort of consubstantiation is given up by the
likewise bring in the agency of the Holy Ghost, but simply for conveying the energy or the
power and effect of the body and blood of Christ in heaven to the believing communicant.
1 The Roman Catholic Bellarmin (see below) and Eeformed polemics (also Steitz on
Ubiquity -, in Herzog's JEncykL) argue that the ubiquity dogma destroys the Lutheran corpo-
real presence, and logically ends in the Calvinistic theory of the spiritual real presence. But
we would rather say that it ends in a crypto-panchristism, which is quite foreign to Calvin.
The doctrine of ubiquity was, before Luther, always connected with a leaning to Gnosticism
and Pantheism, as in Origen and Scotus Erigena.
3 The Lutherans exclude all ideas of local extension or expansion from the body of Christ,
and describe it just as the scholastics and the ancient philosophers (Plato, Aristotle, Philo)
describe the presence of incorporeal substances, and especially of the Deity itself, which is
'unextended,' 'indistant,' 'devoid of magnitude/ not part of it here and part of it there, but
whole and undivided every where and nowhere. See Cudworth's Intellectual System of th*
Universe, Harrison's ed. (Lond. 1845 J, Vol. IH. p. 248.
§ 46. THE FOKM OF CONCORD, CONCLUDED. 327
ablest modern exegetes,1 who agree in the following decisive results :
(«) That the disputed word larl was not even spoken by our Lord in
Aramaic, and can have no conclusive weight, (b) That the substantive
verb may designate a symbolical as well as a real relation between the
subject and the predicate, as is evident from the nature of the case and
from innumerable passages of Scripture, (c) That in this case the lit-
eral interpretation would lead to transubstantiation rather than the semi-
figurative (synecdochical) consubstantiation ; since Christ does not say
what the Lutheran hypothesis would require : ' This is my body and
bread? f This is my blood and wine (or in, with, and under the bread
and wine).' (d) That the figurative or metaphorical interpretation
(whether in the Zwinglian or Calvinistic sense) is made necessary in
connection with the rovro for ovroc, irorripLov for olvoc, or aT/m, as well
as by the surroundings of the institution of the Lord's Supper, viz. : the
nature of the typical passover, the living, personal presence of our Lord,
with his body still unbroken and his blood still unshed, which could not
be literally eaten and drunk by his disciples.
This, of course, only settles the exegetical basis, and still leaves room
for different doctrinal views of this sacred ordinance, into which we
can not here enter.2
1 Including such unbiased philological commentators as De Wette and Meyer. See es-
pecially Meyer on Matthew xxvi. 26 (pp. 548 sqq. of the 5th ed.), and my annotations to
Lange on Matthew, Am. ed., pp. 470-474. Kahnis, who formerly wrote an elaborate his-
torical work in defense of the Lutheran doctrine (Die Lehre vom Abendmahl, Lipz. I8ol), has
more recently (1861) arrived at the conclusion that l the Lutheran interpretation of the words
of institution must be given up, 'though he thinks that this affects only the Lutheran theol-
ogy, not the Lutheran faith.
8 I have briefly expressed my own view in Com. on Matthew, p. 471 : . . . * But we firm-
ly believe that the Lutheran and Eeformed views can be essentially reconciled, if subordi-
nate differences and scholastic subtleties are yielded. The chief elements of reconciliation
are at hand in the Melanchthonian-Calvinistic theory. The Lord's Supper is: (1.) A com-
memorative ordinance, a memorial of Christ's atoning death, and a renewed application of the
virtue of his broken body and shed blood. (This is the truth of the Zwinglian view, which no
one can deny in the face of the words of the Saviour: 'Do this in remembrance of me.1) (2.) A
feast of living union of believers with the ever-living, exalted Saviour, whereby we truly,
though spiritually, receive Christ with all his benefits, and are nourished by his life unto
life eternal. (This was the substance for which Luther contended against Zwingli, and which
Calvin retained, though in a different scientific form, and in a sense rightly confined to be-
lievers.) (3.) A communion of believers with one another as members of the same mystical
body of Christ. ... It is a sad reflection that the ordinance of the Lord's Supper — this feast
of the unio mystica and communio sanctorum, which should bind all pious hearts to Christ and
each other, and fill them with the holiest and tenderest affections — has been the innocent oc-
casion of the bitterest and most violent passions and the most uncharitable abuse. The eu-
charistic controversies are among the most unrefreshing and apparently fruitless in church his-
VOL. I.— T
328 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
11. The Lutheran doctrine of the eucharist overlooks the omnipres-
ence of the Holy Spirit, and substitutes for it the corporeal presence of
Christ. It is the Holy Spirit who brings the believer in and out of the
sacrament into a living union and communion with the whole Christ,
and makes the perpetual virtue and efficacy of his crucified body on
the cross, i. e^ his atoning sacrifice, and of his glorified body in heaven,
available for our spiritual benefit
12. Finally, as regards the two states of Christ, the Eeformed Chris-
tology is right in making the pre-existent Logos (Adyog avapKog) the
subject of the /clvoxwc, or self-humiliation, instead of the human nature
(or the Aoyoc ?i/(rapKoc), which was never before lv popipy Scoi), and
consequently could not renounce it in any way. The incarnation it-
self is the beginning of the humiliation. In this interpretation of
Phil. ii. Y the Eeforrned Church is sustained not only by Chrysostom
and other fathers, but also by the best modern exegetes of all denom-
inations, including Lutherans.1
tory. Theologians will have much to answer for at the judgment-day for having perverted
the sacred feast of divine love into an apple of discord. No wonder that Melanchthorf s last
wish and prayer was to be delivered from the rabies theoloyorvm. Fortunately, the blessing
of the holy communion does not depend upon the scientific interpretation and understanding
of the words of institution, hut upon the promise of the Lord, and upon childlike faith which
receives it, though it may not fully understand the mystery of the ordinance. Christians cele-
brated it with most devotion and profit before they contended about the true meaning of those
words, and obscured their vision by all sorts of scholastic theories and speculations. For-
tunately, even now Christians of different denominations and holding different opinions can
unite around the table of their common Lord and Saviour, and feel one with him and in
him who died for them all, and feeds them with his life once sacrificed on the cross, but
now living forever. Let them hold fast to what they agree in, and charitably judge of their
differences ; looking hopefully forward to the marriage supper of the Lamb in the kingdom
of glory, when we shall understand and adore, in perfect harmony, the infinite mystery of the
love of God in his Son our Saviour. *
1 See, especially, Meyer (who ably defends the patristic and Reformed exegesis against the
objections of De Wette and Philippi), and Braune on Phil. ii. 6 sqq. (Am. ed. of Lange). The
latter says: *DC has for its antecedent Xpiffnf *li)ffov, and points to his tinte-mundane state,
as verses 7 and 8 refer to his earthly existence, and verses 9-1 1 refer to his subsequent glorified
condition. The subject is the Ego of the Lord, which is active in all the three modes of
existence. It is the entire summary of the history of Jesus, including his ante-human state.'
Among the dogmatic theologians of the Lutheran Church, Liebner, Thomasius, Kahnis, Gess,
and others, give up the old Lutheran exegesis of the passage. Kahnis (in the third volume
of his Luth. Dogmatik, 1868, p. 341) makes, as the result of his earnest investigation, the fol-
lowing clear and honest statement: *(a) Dass Paulus in der Offenbarungsgeschirhte Je$u
Christ* drei Stadien tmterscheidet : das Stadium der Gottesgestalt, da der Logos beim Vater
war; das Stadium der Knechtsgesta.lt) das mit der Selbstverleugnung Chiisti in der Mensch*
werdung begann und zur Emiedrigung am Kreuse fortging ; das Stadium der ErftShung, da
tw Namen Christi sich atte Knie beugen und ifin als Herrn bekennen* 0>) Doss das Subjekt
§ 46. THE FORM OF CONCORD, CONCLUDED.
Art. IX. OF CHRIST'S DESCENT INTO HELL. — The fact of a real de-
scent of the whole person of Christ, the God-man, after his death, into
the real hell (not a metaphorical hell, nor the grave, nor the limbus
jpatrum) is affirmed, and its object defined to be the defeat of Satan
and the deliverance of believers from the power of death and the
devil; but all curious questions about the mode are deprecated and
left for the world to come.
Art. X. OF CHURCH USAGES AND CEREMONIES, CALLED ADIAPHORA.
—The observance of ceremonies and usages neither commanded nor
forbidden in the Word of God, should be left to Christian freedom, but
should be firmly resisted when they are forced upon us as a part of
divine service (Gal. ii. 4, 5 ; v. 1 ; Acts xvi. 3 ; Bom. xiv. 6 ; 1 Cor. vii.
18; Col.ii.16).
This article was a virtual condemnation of Melanchthon's course in
the Interim controversy.
Art. XL OF GOD'S FOREKNOWLEDGE AND ELECTION. — No serious con-
troversy took place on this doctrine in the Lutheran Church, except at
Strasburg between Zanchi and Marbach (1561). The rigid predestina-
rianism of Luther and the Flacianists quietly gave way to the doctrine
of the universality of divine grace, while yet the anthropological .pre-
mises of the Augustinian system were retained (in Art. I. and II.).
The Formula teaches that there is a distinction between foreknowl-
edge (prcescientia, prcevisio, Vorsehung,M.&kt. x. 29; Psa. cxxxix. 16;
Isa. xxxvii. 28) and foreordination (jprcedestinatio, deetio, ewige Wahl,
Eph. i. 5) ; that foreknowledge pertains alike to the good and the evil,
and is not the cause of sin and destruction ; that foreordination refers
only to the children of God ; that this predestination of the elect is
' eternal, infallible, and unchangeable,5 and is the ultimate and uncon-
ditional cause of their salvation; that God, though he elects only a
portion, sincerely desires all men to be saved, and invites them by his
Word to the salvation in Christ ; that the impenitent perish by their
der Emiedrigung der Xoyoc affapKog ist, wie schon die alte Kirche in ihren namhaftesten Lehr-
ern sah, die reformirten Theologen richtig erkannten und attch die bedeutendsten neueren
Ausleger alter Confessionen zugestehen, das Suljekt der Urhdhung aber der X6yo£ tvaapKO£.
(c) Dass die Ent&usserung (iavrov Irei/wo*) darin besteht, dass der Logos sich der Grottesge-
stalt (/iOjO^j) Srtov) d. h. des Herrlichkeitsstandes beim Vater begab, urn Knecktsgesto.lt (popfri
&w\ot') anzunehmen, d. h. eiri Mensch wie wir zu werdenja als Mensch sich zum Kreuzestode
zu erniedrigen (sTair&ivtDfftv kavrov) : Entausserung also gleich Menschwerdwng ist. Darnach
fordert dieses Lehrstuclc eine andere Fassung, als die alte [Luther J] Dogmatik ihm gab.''
330 THE CBEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
own guilt in rejecting the gospel; that Christians should seek the
eternal election, not in the secret but in the revealed will of God, and
avoid presumptuous and curious questions*
Thus the particularism of election and the universalism of vocation5
the absolute inability of fallen man (Art. II.), and the guilt of the
unbeliever for rejecting what he can not accept, are illogically com-
bined. The obvious contradiction between this article and the second
has already been pointed out.1
The authors felt the speculative difficulties of this dogma, and em-
phasized the practical side, which amounts to this : that believers are
saved by the free grace of God, while unbelievers are lost by their own
guilt in rejecting the grace sincerely offered to them. Later Lutheran
divines, like John Gerhard, labored hard to show that God not only
sincerely desires the salvation of all men alike, but that he also actually
gives an opportunity to all men even in this present life.2 But the ar-
gument fails with regard to the heathen, who form the greatest part of
the race even to this day (not to speak of the world before Christ) ; and
hence the Lutheran view of the actual universality of the offer of grace
necessitates an essential change of the orthodox doctrine of the middle
state, as far as those are concerned who never heard of the gospel in
this world.
Art. XII. OF SEVERAL HERESIES AND SECTS. — This article rejects the
peculiar tenets of the Anabaptists, Schwenkfeldians, New Arians, and
Antitrinitarians, who never embraced the Augsburg Confession.
To the second part of the Formula there is added a Catalogue of
Testimonies from the Scriptures and the fathers (Athanasius, Greg-
ory Nazianzen, Cyril of Alexandria, John of Damascus) concerning
the divine majesty of the human nature of Christ, in support of
the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum, as taught in Art. VIII.
This Appendix was prepared by Andrese and Chemnitz; but it has
1 See above, p. 314. Comp. also Dorner, Gesch. der Prot. Theol. pp. 366 sqq. Planck
(Vol. VI. p. 814) charges this article with a confusion not found in the other parts of the
Formula, and Gieseler (Vol. IV. p. 488) with putting together contradictory positions ; while,
on the other hand, Thomasius (Das Bekenntniss der ev. luth* Kircke, etc. p. 222) sees here
only supplementary truths to be reconciled by theological science, and Guericke (in his Kir*
chengeschichte, Vol. III. p. 419) calls the logical inconsistency of the Formula * divinely ne-
cessitated' (eine gSttlich nothwendiffe Verstandes-Inconsequenz).
* Loc. Theol Tom. IV. pp. 189 sqq. (de JSlectione et Reprob. § 7; de Uhiversalitate V*
cationis, § 135).
§ 46. THE FORMULA OF CONCOBD, CONCLUDED. 331
no symbolical authority, and is often omitted from the Book of Con-
cord.1
RECEPTION", ATTTHOBITY, AND INTRODUCTION.2
The Form of Concord, as it is the last, is also the most disputed of
the Lutheran symbols. It never attained general authority, like the
Augsburg Confession or Luther's Catechism, although far greater ex-
ertions were made for its introduction.
It was adopted by the majority of the Lutheran principalities and
state churches in Germany ;3 also by the state church of Sweden, the
Lutherans in Hungary, and several Lutheran synods in the United
States.4
On the other hand, it was rejected by a number of Lutheran Princes
and cities of the empire,5 and by King Frederick II. of Denmark.6
Some countries of Germany, where it had been first introduced, re-
jected it afterwards, but remained Lutheran ;7 while others, in conse-
J Tittmann and Hase omit it ; MtiUer gives it (pp. 731-767).
s Comp. among recent works especially the third volume of Heppe's Geschichte des D.
Protest, pp. 215-322, and the whole fourth volume. The chief data are also given by Gie-
seler, Vol. IV. pp. 489-493, and hy Kollner, 1. c. pp. 573-583.
3 The Preface of the Book of Concord is signed hy eighty-six names representing the Lu-
theran state churches in the German empire ; among them are three Electors (Louis of the
Palatinate, Augustus of Saxony, and John George of Brandenburg), twenty Dukes and
Princes, twenty-four Counts, thirty-five burgomasters and counselors of imperial cities. The
Formula was also signed by about 8000 pastors and teachers under their jurisdiction, includ-
ing a large number of ex-Philippists and Crypto-Calvinists, who preferred their livings to their
theology ; hence Hutter was no doubt right when he admitted that many subscribed mala
conscientia. Yet no direct compulsion seems to have been used. See Kollner, p. 551, and
Johannsen, Ueber die Unterschriften des Concordieribuches, in Niedner's Zeitschrift fur histor.
Theologie, 1847, No. 1.
4 It was adopted in Sweden at a Council of Upsala, 1593 ; in Hungary, 1597. In America
it is held by the Lutheran Synodical Conference, and by the General Council, but rejected by
the General Synod (see p. 224).
5 The Landgrave of Hesse, the Palatinate John Casimir, the Prince of Anhalt, the Duke
of Pomerania (where, however, the symbol afterwards came into authority), the Duke of
Holstein, the Duke of Saxe-Luneburg, the Counts of Nassau and Hanau, the cities of Stras-
burg, Frankfort-on-the-Main, Spires, Worms, Nuremberg, Magdeburg, Bremen, Danzig,
Nordhausen.
6 Frederick EC. strictly prohibited, on pain of confiscation and deposition, the importation
and publication of the Form of Concord in Denmark (July 24, 1 580), and threw the two su-
perbly bound copies sent to him by his sister, the wife of Augustus of Saxony, unceremoniously
into the chimney-fire. See Kollner, p. 575 sq. ; Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 493, note 54; and
Heppe, Vol. IV. pp. 275 sqq. Nevertheless the document afterwards gained considerable
currency in Denmark.
7 So the Duchy of Brunswick recalled the subscription in 1583. Duke Julius, one of the
332 1*HE CREEDS 0# CHRISTENDOM.
quence of the doctrinal innovations and exclusiveness of the Formula,
passed over to the Eeformed Confession.1 It is a significant fact, that
the successors of the three Electors, who were the chief patrons and
signers of the Formula, left the Lutheran Church: two became Re-
formed, and one (the King of Saxony) a Roman Catholic.
OPPOSITION AOT DEFENSE.2
The Formula gave rise to much controversy. It was assailed from dif-
ferent quarters by discontented Lutherans and Philippists,3 Calvinists,4
most zealous promoters of the Form of Concord, became alienated for personal reasons, because
he was severely blamed by Chemnitz and several Princes for allowing one of his sons to receive
Romish consecration (Dec. 5, 1578), and two others the tonsure, to the great scandal of Prot-
estantism. He was afterwards strengthened by the doctrinal opposition of Heshusius and
the Helmstadt Professors, who rejected the .Formula for teaching absolute ubiquity. The
Corpus doctrines Juliuui was retained in Brunswick and Wolfenbiittel. fc-'ee Planck, Vol. VI.
pp. 667 sqq., and especiaUy Heppe, Vol. IV. pp. 203 sqq. These Brunswick troubles brought
about an alienation between Andreae (who labored to reconcile the Duke) and Chemnitz (who
was deposed by the Duke). In a widely circulated letter of April 8, 1580, Chemnitz compared
Andrese to a fawning and scratching cat (*CMW cor am longe aliud mihi dicas, wie die Katzen,
die vorne lecken und hinten kratzen. '). Heppe, p. 214.
1 So the Palatinate, which, after a short Lutheran interregnum of Louis, readopted the
Heidelberg Catechism under John Casimir (1583), Anhalt (15S8),Zweibriicken (1588), Hanau
(1596), Hesse (1604), and especially Brandenburg under John Sigismund (1614). In this
respect the Formula of Concord inflicted great territorial loss upon the Lutheran denomina-
tion. The greatest loss was the Palatinate and the Electoral, afterwards the royal house of
Brandenburg and Prussia.
2 See lists of controversial works for and against the Formula of Concord in Walch, Feuer-
lin, and Kollner. Comp. also Hutter, Cone. cone. Ch. XXXVII. (p. 958), Ch. XLI. (p. 976),
Ch. XLV. (p. 1033), and Ch. XLV. (p. 1038) ; Heppe, Vol. IV. pp, 270 sqq. ; and G-. Frank,
Vol. L pp. 251-266. Hutter sees in the general attack of *the devil and his organs, the here-
tics,' against the Formula, a clear proof that it was composed instinctu Spiritus Sancti, and is
in full harmony with the infallible Word of God (p. 976).
3 The rigidly orthodox Heshusius and the Helmstadt divines (in the Quedlinburg Colloqui-
umr 1583), Christopher Irenaeus (an exiled Flacianist, formerly court chaplain at Weimar,
1581), Ambrosins Wolff (or Cyriacus Herdesianus, of Nuremberg, 1580), the Bremen preach-
ers (1581), the Anhalt theologians (1580, 1581), and the Margrave of Baden (in the Stafford
Book, 1599).
* Ursintts (in connection with Zanchius, Tossanns, and other deposed Heidelberg Professors,
who, under John Casimir and during the rule of Lutheranism in Heidelberg, founded and
conducted a flourishing theological school at Neustadt an der Hardt, 1576 to 1583) : Admonitio
Christiana de libro Concordia (or Christliche JErinnerung vom Concordienbucli), Neostadadii in
Palatinatu, Latin and German, 1581 (also in Urs. Opera, Heidelberg, 161 2, Vol. II. pp.486
sqq.). It consists of twelve chapters, and is very able. Extract in Sudhoff, Ohmanus und
Ursinu$i pp. 432-452 ; comp. Schweizer in Herzog. Vol. X. pp. 263-265. Ursinus and some
of his pupils defended this work against the Lutheran 'Apology,' in Defendo Admonitionis
Neost. contra Apologies JSrfordensis sophismata, Neost. 1584. Beza wrote Refutatio dog-
matic de Jictida carnis Christi omnipr&sentia ; Danseus an JSxamen of Chemnitz's book
D<t duabus in Christo naturis, Genev. 1581 ; Sadeel, a very able tract, De veritate humanos
§ 46. THE POEM OF CONCORD, CONCLUDED. 333
and Romanists.1 The chief objection was to the new dogma of ubiq-
uity.
The Lutherans attacked, according to their stand-point, either the
concessions to the Swabian scheme of absolute ubiquity, or the absence
of a direct condemnation of Melanchthon and other heretics, or the re-
jection of the Flacian theory of original sin, or the condemnation of
Synergism. The last point could be made very plausible, since the
chief authors of the Formula, Andreas, Chemnitz, and Selnecker, had
at first been decided synergists. Ohytrseus remained true at least to
his love and admiration for Melanchthon, which subjected him to the
suspicion of Crypto-Philippism and Calvinism.2
The Reformed, led by Ursinus (chief author of the Heidelberg
Catechism), justly complained of the misrepresentations and unfair con-
demnation of their doctrine under the indiscriminate charge of sacra-
mentarianism,3 and explained the qualified sense in which the Reformed
signed the Augsburg Confession in the sense of its author, with whole-
some strictures on the unprotestant overestimate of the authority of
Luther. They exposed with rigid logic the doctrinal contradiction be-
tween Arts. II. and XL, quoted Luther's views on predestination against
the Formula, and refuted with clear and strong arguments the new
dogma of ubiquity, which is contrary to the Scriptures, the oecumenical
creeds, and sound reason, and destructive of the very nature of the sac-
rament as a communion of the 'body of Christ ; for if the body is omni-
present, and there can be but one omnipresence, it must be present like
God himself, i. e. like a spirit, every where whole and complete, without
natwraz Christi, 1585 (in his Opera, Genev. 1592). Of later Reformed writings must be men-
tioned the Emdensche Buch (1591), and especially Hospmian's Concordia discors (1607), which
called forth Hutter's Concordia concors (16H).
1 The ablest Roman assailant was Robert Bellarmin : Judicivm de libro guem Lutherani
vocant Concordice, Ingolst. 1587, 1589, etc. (in his Opera, Col Ag. 1620, Vol. VII. p. 576).
Against him Hoe ab Hoenegg wrote Apol contra JZ. B. impium et stolidum judicium^ Frcf.
1605. Bellarmin also repeatedly notices the Christology of the Formula in his great contro-
versial work against Protestantism. See below.
2 See SchutZjFita Chytrcei, and Heppe,Vol IV. pp. 395 sqq.
3 This complaint the Erfurt Apology of the Formula of Concord admitted to be just, at least
In part. The Formula makes no distinction between Zwingli and Calvin ; condemns Zwin-
gli's * allceosis' (by which he meant only to guard against a confusio and ceqwtio naturarwn) as
a mask of the devil ; charges the Reformed generally with a Nestorian separation of the two
natures in Christ, and a denial of all communion between them ; with childish literalism con-
cerning the right hand of God and the throne of glory j with shutting Christ up in heaven, as
if he had no more to do with us, etc.
334 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
parts and members, and thus the lineaments and concrete image of
Christ are lost Sadeel pointed out the palpable inconsistency between
the hyperphysical and ultrasupernatural outfit of Christ's body for the
eucharistic presence, on the one hand, and the emphasizing of a corpo-
real presence and oral manducation on the other, as if this were the
main thing in the sacrament, while the communion of the believing
soul with the person of Christ was almost lost sight of.1
Strange to say, the Eoman Catholics were just as decidedly opposed
to ubiquity, though otherwise much nearer the Lutheran doctrine of the
sacraments. Bellarmin, the greatest controversialist of Rome, exposes
the absurdity of a dogma which would destroy the human nature of
Christ, and involve the presence of his body in uteris omnium femina-
rum, imo etiam virorum, and the presence extra uterum from the mo-
ment of conception, and in utero after the nativity. In his polemic
work against Protestantism he urges five arguments against ubiquity,2
viz. : (1.) It abolishes the sacramental character of the eucharist. (2.)
It leads to the Calvinistic spiritual presence and spiritual eating by
faith — the very error of the sacramentarians which this Lutheran dogma
was to overthrow.3 (3.) It destroys the specific effect of the eucharist,
and makes it useless. (4) It is refuted by the other Lutheran doctrine
which confines the presence to the time of the use of the sacrament.4
1 Dorner, in his History of Christology (Vol. II. pp. 71 8-750), gives an admirable and im-
partial summary of the Reformed argument. Dr. Kahnis, of Leipzig, from his Lutheran stand-
point, thus fairly and liberally characterizes the Reformed opposition to the Form of Concord
(Luth. Dogm. Vol. II. p. 590) : 'Itit Reformirten vertraten den Standpunkt des Verstandes,
welcher zwischen Endlichem und Unendlichem abstract (?) scheidend (jinitum non est capax
infinity der menschlichen Natur Christi keinen Antheil an den g'dttlichen Eigenschaften ein-
raumt ; den Standpunkt der Realitat, welcher in der Betrachtung der Person Christy von
dem Wandel auf Erden ausgehead, der rein menschlichen Entwicklung Christi freien Raum
schafen will; den Standpunkt des Praktischen, der bei den sicheren Thatsachen der persdn-
Uchen Vereinigung Beruhigung fasste, ohne sich in gnostisch-scholastische Theorien verspinnen
zu wollen.1
2 Lib. HI. de Sacramento ISucharistice, cap. 17. Comp. also cap. 7, and Lib. III. de Ghristo
(where he refers to the views of Luther, Brentius, Wigand, Heshusius, and Chemnitz en
ubiquity).
3 His reasoning is curious: *Quod est ubique, nonpotest moverit nee transire de loco ad locum;
ergo licet corpus Christi sit in pane, tamen non manducatur, cum panis manducatur, quia non
movetur, nee transit cum pane e manu ad os, et ab ore ad stomachum ; nam etiam antea erat
in ore et in stomacho, priusquam panis eo veniret. . . . Sequitur aut esse inanem ccenam Domi-
ni, out saltern SfrirituaKter sumi per energiam etperfidem, et solum apiis9 qui habent fidem, et
hoc est, quod volunt CalmnistceS
4 lSi enim corpus Christi ubigue esty erit etiam ante usum in pane*.'
§ 46. THE FORM OF CONCORD, CONCLUDED. 335
(5.) It is a makeshift to evade the power of priestly consecration which
creates the eucharistic presence.1
Outside of Germany and Switzerland the Formula of Concord ex-
cited little or only passing polemical interest. Queen Elizabeth en-
deavored to prevent its adoption because it condemned the Reformed
doctrine, and threatened to split and weaken the Protestants in their
opposition to the united power of Rome. She sent delegates to a
convention of Reformed Princes and delegates held at Frankfort-on-
the-Maiii, Sept. 1577.2 The Anglican divines of the sixteenth century
rejected ubiquity as decidedly as the Continental Calvinists.3 Evan-
gelical Episcopalians hold the Reformed view of the sacraments ; and
as to modern Anglo-Catholic and Ritualistic Episcopalians, they greatly
prefer the Romish or Greek dogma of transubstantiation to the Luther-
an consubstantiation.4
The attacks upon the Formula, especially those proceeding from
Lutherans and the Palatinate divines, could not be ignored in silence.
Chemnitz, Seluecker, and Kirchner, by order of the three electoral
1 Bellarmin (De Sacr. Euch. Lib. III. c. 7), after quoting Augustine against the sententia
ubiquistarum Lutheranorum, thus defines the Roman view: 'Nosfatemur Christi corpus non
esse ubique diffusum; et ubicunque est, habere suam formam et partium situm, ac dispositionem;
quamvis hcecjigura, forma, dispositio partium in ccslo conspiciatur, ubi locum replet; in Sacra-
mento autem sit quidem, sed non repkat locum, nee videri a nobis possit.'
8 Comp. on Elizabeth's action and the Convent of Frankfort, Hutter's Concordia concors,
Cap. XVL and XVII. (pp. 513-523) ; Planck, Vol. VI. pp. 591-61 1 ; Heppe, Vol. IV. pp. 5
sqq., 16 sqq., and 72 sqq.
3 Cranmer was at first inclined to the Lutheran theory, but gave it up afterwards. His fel-
low-Eeformers held the Zwinglian or Calvinistic view. Bishop Hooper thus speaks of ubiq-
uity : * Such as say that heaven and the right hand of God is in the articles of our faith taken
for God's power and might, which is every where, they do wrong to the Scripture and unto
the articles of our faith. They make a confusion of the Scripture, and leave nothing cer-
tain. They darken the simple and plain verity thereof with intolerable sophisms. They
make heaven hell, and hell heaven, turn upside down and pervert the order of God. If the
heaven and God's right hand, whither our Saviour's body is ascended, be every where, and
noteth no certain place, as these uncertain men teach, I will believe no ascension. What
needeth it ?— seeing Christ's body is every where with his Godhead. I will interpret this
article of my creed thus : Ckristus ascendit ad dextram Patris. Patris dextra est ubique :
ergo Christus ascendit ad ubique. See what erroneous doctrine followeth their imaginations !'
Early Writings of John Hooper, D.D., Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Worcester, Martyr,
1555; ed.by the Parker Society, Cambridge, 1843, p. 66. The * Declaration of Christ and
his Office,' from which this passage is taken, was first published at Zurich, 1547, in the early
stage of the ubiquitarian controversy. See also the Remains of Archbishop Grindal, Camb.
1843, p. 46.
4 Comp. the eucharistic works of Pusey (1855), Philip Freeman (1862), Thomas L. Vogan
(1871)? and John Harrison (against Pusey, 1871).
336 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
patrons of the work, convened at Erfurt,1 Oct. 23, 1581 (afterwards at
Braunschweig and Quedlinburg), and prepared, with much labor and
trouble, an elaborate 'Apology,5 called the 'Erfurt Book? in four
parts.2 It called forth new attacks, which it is unnecessary here to
follow.
LATER FORTUNES.
During the palmy period of Lutheran scholasticism the Formula of
Concord stood in high authority among Lutherans, and was even re-
garded as inspired.3 Its first centennial (1680) was celebrated with
considerable enthusiasm.4 But at the close of another century it was
dead and buried. The Pietists, and afterwards the Eationalists, rebelled
against symbololatry and lifeless orthodoxy. One stone after another
was taken down from the old temple, until it was left a venerable ruin.
Those very countries where subscription to creeds had been most rig-
orously enforced, suffered most from the neological revolution.
Then followed a period of patient research and independent criti-
cism, which led to a more impartial estimate. Planck, the ablest Lu-
theran historian of the Formula, with complete mastery of the sources,
followed the leading actors into all the ramifications and recesses of
their psychological motives, political intrigues, and theological passions,
and represents the work as the fabrication of a theological triumvirate,
which upon the whole did more harm than good, and which produced
endless confusion and controversy.5 Kollner, another learned and im-
partial Lutheran, concedes to it higher merit for the past, but no dog-
matic significance for the present, except in the article on predestina-
tion.6 Heppe, the indefatigable historian of the G-erman post-Eefor-
1 In the Gasthofzum grunen Weinfasse. This gave rise to some joke and mockery.
2 The first part was directed against the Neustadt Admonition of Ursinus and his colleagues,
the second against the Bremen pastors, the third against Irenseus, the fourth against Wolf.
Timothy Kirchner, of the Palatinate, prepared the first three parts, Selnecker and Chemnitz
the last. They were published singly, and then jointly at Dresden, 1584, and distributed by
the Elector Augustus among all the churches of Saxony. See Hutter, pp. 978 sqq. and 1038
sqq. (JDe Apol. Lion Concord, et de Colloquio Quedlinburgensi); Heppe, Vol. IV. pp. 284-311.
3 Hutter (Cone. cone. p. 976), Deutschmann, and others, who called it SftowewroQ.
4 Anton, 1. c. Ch. X. Erste Concordien-Jubelfreude, pp. 134 sqq. J. G-.Walch, in his In-
trod. 1732, represents the last stage of orthodox veneration before the revolution of sentiment
took place.
* See his judgment, VoL VI. pp. 690 sqq. ; 816 sqq. and passim. Planck's history is, even
more than Hospinian's Concordia discors, a chronigue scandaleuse of Lutheran pugnacity and
bigotry in the second half of the sixteenth century.
6 Symb. Vol. I. p. 596 : lDie Concordieriform'J hat dogmatisch nur insofar® nach Wsrih> ah
§ 46. THE FORM OF CONCORD, CONCLUDED. 337
mation period, from a vast amount of authentic information, carries out
the one-sided idea that the Lutheranism of the Formula is an apostasy
from the normal development of German Protestantism, by which
he means progressive, semi-Reformed, unionistic Melanchthonianism.1
Even Kahnis thinks that the Lutheran theology of the future must be
built on the Melanchthonian elements which were condemned by the
Formula.2
With the modern revival of orthodoxy, the Formula enjoyed a par-
tial resurrection among Lutherans of the high sacramentarian type,
who regard it as the model of pure doctrine and the best summary of
the Bible. By this class of divines it is all the more highly esteemed,
since they make doctrine the corner-stone of the Church and the in-
dispensable condition of Christian fellowship. In America, too, the
Formula has recently found at least one able and scholarly advocate in
the person of Dr. Krauth, of Philadelphia.3
Yet the great body of the Lutheran Church will never return to the
former veneration for this symbol. History never repeats itself. Each
age must produce its own theology. Even modern Lutheran ortho-
doxy in its ablest champions is by no means in full harmony with the
Formula, but departs from its anthropology and Christology, and makes
concessions to Melanchthon and the Eeformed theology, or attempts a
new solution of the mighty problems which were once regarded as
finally settled.4
sie mit denfruheren Symbolen ubereinstimmt. . . . Allein die Lehre von der Pradestinatwn
ausgenommen, kann ihrfur das Dogma wiefur die ausseren Verhaltnisse der Kirche nwr der
wenigste eigenthumliche Werth unter alien Symbolen der Kirche zugestanden werden. Eigen-
thumlich ist nur die Ausbildung und mehr systematische Gestaltung des Lehrbegriffs der
Kirche als eines Systems.1 This is too low an estimate of the whole document, and too high
an estimate of Art. XL
1 In his numerous works, so often quoted.
2 Dogm. VoL II. p. 517 : 'Man darf . . . mit Zuversicht aussprechen, doss die ZuJcunft der
theologischen Forschung an dem Fortschreiten auf dem von Melanchthon eingeschlagenen Wege
langt:
3 Dr. Krauth calls the Formula ' the amplest and clearest confession in which the Chris-
tian Church has ever embodied her faith,' and he goes so far as to say : 'But for the For-
mula of Concord, it may be questioned whether Protestantism could have been saved to the
world ' (Conservative Reform, p. 802). And this in full view of the independent Protestant-
ism in Switzerland, France, Holland, England, and Scotland, which materially differs from
the distinctive theology of this book, and was in vain condemned by it!
* We can simply allude to the internal differences of the Erlangen, Leipzig, and Rostock
schools of Lutherans; toLuthardt on the freedom of the will; toThomasius on theKenosis;
to Kahnis on the Lord's Supper, inspiration, and the canon of the Scripture; to the Hofmann
338 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
AN IMPARTIAL ESTIMATE.
The Formula of Concord is, next to the Augsburg Confession, the
most important theological standard of the Lutheran Church, but dif-
fers from it as the sectarian symbol of Lutheranism, while the other is
its catholic symbol. Hence its authority is confined to that communion,
and is recognized only by a section of it. It is both conclusive and ex-
clusive, a Formula of Concord and a Formula of Discord, the end of
controversy and the beginning of controversy. It completed the separa-
tion of the Lutheran and Eeformed Churches, it contracted the territory
and the theology of Lutheranism, and sowed in it the seed of discord
by endeavoring to settle too much, and yet leaving unsettled some of
the most characteristic dogmas. It is invaluable as a theological docu-
ment, but a partial failure as a symbol, just because it contains too
much theology and too little charity. It closes the productive period
of the Lutheran reformation and opens the era of scholastic formalism.
The Formula is the fullest embodiment of genuine Lutheran ortho-
doxy, as distinct from other denominations. It represents one of the
leading doctrinal types of Christendom. It is for the Lutheran system
what the Decrees of Trent are for the Roman Catholic, the Canons
of Dort for the Calvinistic. It sums up the results of the theolog-
ical controversies of a whole generation with great learning, ability, dis-
crimination, acumen, and, we may add, with comparative moderation.
It is quite probable that Luther himself would have heartily indorsed
it, with the exception, perhaps, of a part of the eleventh article. The
Formula itself claims to be merely a repetition and explication of the
and Philippi controversy on the atonement ; to Hengstenberg's articles on justification and
the Epistle of James ; to the disputes on the millenarian question ; and to the controversy on
Church government and the relation of the ministry to the general priesthood of believers, in
which Huschke, Stahl, Kliefoth, Vilmar, and Lohe take High-Church ground against the Low-
Church views of Hotting, Harless, Diedrieh, etc. Some of these controversies, especially the
question of the ministerial office (Amtsfrage\ are also disturbing the peace of the orthodox
Lutherans in America, and divide them into hostile synods (the Missouri Synod versus the
Grabau Synod, Iowa Synod, and portions of the General Council, not to mention several sub-
divisions). The eschatological controversy separates the Iowa Synod from Grabau and the
Missourians, who denounce millenarianism as a heresy. The smallest doctrinal difference
among orthodox Lutherans in America is considered sufficient to justify the formation of a
new synod with close-communion principles. And yet all these Lutherans adopt the Form-
ula Concordiae as the highest standard of pure Scripture orthodoxy. Is this Concordia con-
tors, or Concordia discorsf
§ 46. THE FORM OF CONCORD, CONCLUDED. 339
genuine sense of the Augsburg Confession, and disclaims originality in
the substance of doctrine.1 But there were two diverging tendencies
proceeding from the same source. The author of the Confession him-
self understood and explained it differently, and the Formula added
new dogmas which he never entertained. It excludes, indeed, certain
extravagances of the Flaciau wing of Lntheranism, but, upon the
whole, it is a condemnation of Philippism and a triumph of exclusive
Lntheranism.2
The spirit of Melanchthon could be silenced, but not destroyed, for
it meant theological progress and Christian union. It revived from
time to time in various forms, in Calixtus, Spener, Zinzendorf , Neander,
and other great and good men, who blessed the Lutheran Church by
protesting against bigotry and the overestimate of intellectual ortho-
doxy, by insisting on personal, practical piety, by widening the hori-
zon of truth, and extending the hand of fellowship to other sections of
Christ's kingdom. The minority which at first refused the Formula
became a vast majority, and even the recent reaction of Lutheran con-
1 See the Preface. An able argument for this agreement is presented by Prof. Thomasius,
of Erlangen, in his Das Bekenntniss der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche in der Consequent
seines Princips, Niirnberg, 1848. He develops the doctrines of the Formula from Luther's
doctrine of justification by faith as the organic life-principle of the Lutheran Church. But
the Lutheran doctrine of the eucharist with the communicatio idiomatum and ubiquity of the
body have — as the creeds of the Reformed churches prove — no necessary connection with
justification by faith; and on these points, which constitute the peculiar features of the For-
mula, the author of the Augsburg Confession himself represented, even before Luther's death,
a different line of development.
2 Andreas, in a letter to Heshusius and Wigand, of July 24, 1576, giving an account of the
results of the Torgau Convention (quoted by Heppe, Vol. III. p. Ill), thus characteristically
sets forth the object of the whole movement in which he and the Elector Augustus were the
chief leaders : 'Hoc enim sancte vobis qffirmare etpolliceri ausim, Illust. Electorem Saxonice in
hoc unice intention, ut LUTHBHI DOCTRINA partim obscurata, partim vitiata, partim aperte vel
occulte damnata, pura et sincera in schoZis et Ecclesiis restituatur, adeoque LUTHERUS, HOC
EST CHRISTUS, emus fidelis minister Lutherusfuit, vivat. Quid vultis amplius f Nihil hicfuca-
tum, nihil palliatum, nihil tectum est, sed juxta SPIRITUM LUTHEBI, QUI CHRISTI EST.' And
Chemnitz wrote, June 29, 1576 : tMentio librorum Philippi expuncta est^ et responsione hac in
parte retuUmus nos ad Lichtenbergense decretum* Some zealots, like Heshusius, desired that
Melanchthon should be condemned, by name, in the Formula, but Andreaa thought it better
'to cover the shame of Noah,' and to be silent about the apostasy of the Lutheran Solomon.
Dr.Krauth, too, says (Conservative Reform, p. 327) : ' The Book of Concord treats Melanch-
thon as the Bible treats Solomon. It opens wide the view of his wisdom and glory, and
draws the veil over the record of his sadder days.' In the Formula itself he is nowhere
named, but in the Preface to the 'Book of Concord' his writings are spoken of as iutilia nequA
repudianda ac damnanda, quatenus cum ea norma, gua Concordice libro expressa est, per omnia
consentiunt.'
340 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
fessionalism against rationalism, latitudinarianisin, and unionism will
be unable to undo the work of history, and to restore the Lutheran
scholasticism and exclusivism of the seventeenth century. The Luther-
an Church is greater and wider than Luther and Melanchthon, and, by
its own principle of the absolute supremacy of the Bible as a rule of
faith, it is bound to follow the onward march of Biblical learning.
The great length of this section may be justified by the intrinsic im-
portance of the Formula Concordiae, and the scarcity of reliable in-
formation in English works.1
§ 47. SUPEBSEDED LUTHERAN SYMBOLS. THE SAXON CONFESSION.
THE WttKTEMBEEG CONFESSION. 1551.
Literature.
HETNBIOH HEPPE: Die Bekenntniss-Schrlften der altprotestanti&hm Kirche Deutschlands, Cassel, 1S55.
This collection contains (besides the oecumenical Creeds, the Augsburg Confession of 1580, the Altered
Augsburg Confession of 1540) the Confessto Saxonica, pp, 407-483, and the Confessio W&rtembergica, pp.
491-554.
PHIL, MELANOHTHONIS Opera qua stipersunt omm'a, or Corpus Reformatorum, ed. Bretschneider and
Bindseil,Vol. XXVIIL (Brunsviga, 1860), pp. 329-568. This vol. contains the Latin and German texts
of the Conf. Saxcnwa with critical Prolegomena.
The Book of Concord embraces all the Lutheran symbols which are
still in force; but two other Confessions deserve mention for their
historical importance, viz., the Saxon Confession and the Wiirtemberg
Confession.
Both were written in 1551, twenty-one years after the Confession of
Augsburg and twenty-six years before the Formula of Concord, in
full agreement with the former as understood by its author, and with-
out the distinctive and exclusive features of the latter. Both were in-
tended (like the Articles of Smalcald) for the Roman Catholic Council,
and, although they failed in accomplishing their direct object, they
exhibit the doctrinal status of the Lutheran or the entire Evangelical
Church of Germany at that period. It is this Protestantism which re-
1 There is no full and satisfactory account of the history and character of the Form of Con-
fiord in the English language, except in Dr. Krauth's Conservative Reformation and its The-
dogy, PP» 288-328 ; and this, in accordance with the aim of this learned and able author, is
apologetic and polemic rather than historical. Dr. Shedd, in his valuable History of Christian
Doctrine (Vol. II. p. 458), devotes only a few lines to it. Dr. Fisher, in his excellent work on
the Reformation (N. Y. 1873), disposes of it in a foot-note (p. 481). In Dr. Blunt's Dictionary
of Sects, etc. (London, 1874), it has no place among^the Protestant Confessions, and the brief
allusion to it sub c Lutherans,1 p. 269, only exposes tlie ignorance of the writer. The doctrines
of the Form of Concord are frequently, though mostly polemically, noticed in Dr. Hodge's
Systematic Theology (N.Y.I 873, 3 vols.).
§ 47. SUPEESEDED LUTHERAN SYMBOLS, ETC. 34:1
ceived legal toleration and recognition in the German Empire by the
Treaty of Passau, 1552, and three years afterwards, without the re-
striction as to time, at the Diet of Augsburg.1 But in the succeeding
generation the exclusive and more energetic school of Lutheranism
prevailed, and found its expression in the Formula of Concord, which
superseded those interimistic Confessions.
1. The SAXON CONFESSION (CONFESSIO SAXONIOA) was drawn up by
Melanchthon for the Council of Trent, which, after a brief transfer to
Bologna by Paul III., in March, 1547, was again convened at Trent by
Julius III., May 1, 1551. The German Emperor had previously (Feb.
13) invited the Protestant States to send delegates, promising them full
protection, and his best endeavor to secure ' a Christian, useful reforma-
tion, and abrogation of improper doctrines and abuses.3 Melanchthon
expected nothing from a conference with Bishops and Cardinals, but
considered it wise and politic to accept the Emperor's invitation, pro-
vided he would secure to the Protestant delegates a hearing before the
Council. His advice was the best that could be given under the cir-
cumstances, and was accepted by Elector Maurice of Saxony.2 He was
requested to prepare a ^Repetition and Exposition of the Augsburg
Confession] usually called the 'Saxon Confession?* To finish this
1 Heppe, 1. c. p. xxix. : lDer in der Conf. Saxonica undin d&r Conf. Wurtembergica entfaltete
Lehrbegriff der Augsburgischen Confession ist es, welcher i. J. 1555 zu kirchenstaa+srechtlicher
Geltung kam. Dieses erhellt schon aus den Beschlussen der im Mai 1554 zur Vorbereitung der
Reichstag sverhandlungen gehaltenen evangelischen Conferenz, in dem die daselbst versammel
ten chursaschsischen, hessischen und strassburgischen Deputirten erklarten : Auf bevorstehen-
dem Reichstage habe man als einziges Bekenntniss die AUGSBURGISCHB CONFESSION festzu-
halten. Da aber die sachsische und die wiirtembergische Confession mit derselben durchaus
ubereinstimmten, so habe man entwederjene oder eine von diesen dem Kaiser zu ubergeben.*
2 See several letters from February to April, 1551, in the Corp. Reformed. VII. (1840),
especially pp. 736-739, where Melanchthon gives his views on the Council of Trent ; and
Schmidt, Melanchthon^ pp. 534 sqq.
3 It appeared first in Latin at Basle, 1552, under the title : * CONPESSIO DOJCTBINJS
SAXONICARUM | ECCLESIARUM Synodo Tridentince ob\lata, A.D. 1551, in qua,* etc. The
original MS., with the title ' REPETITIO CONFESSIONIS AUGUSTANJE An. l5:>1,Wttebergce scripta,'
etc., and with corrections from Melanchthon's own hand, is preserved in the library of the
Thomasldrche in Leipzig, to which Selnecker presented it in 1580. From this Heppe and
Bindseil have derived their text ; the latter with a critical apparatus from eight printed edi-
tions. It was translated into German by John Maetsperger, 1552, and by Georg Major, 1555.
The Latin text was often republished separately at Leipzig, Wittenberg, Frankfort, etc., and
in the Melanchthonian Corpora Doctrines; also in the Corpus et Syntagma Confessionum,
Genev. 1612 and 1654, in the Sylbge Cotifessionwn, Oxf. 1804 and 1827 (pp. 237-323) ; and
more recently by H. Heppe, 1. c., and by Bindseil, who gives also Major's German translation,
in Corpf Reform. Vol. XXVIII. pp. 370 sqq. On the various editions, see Bindseil, pp. 347 sqq.
342 THE CREEDS OP CHRISTENDOM.
work with more leisure, he went with his friend Camerarius to the
Prince of Anhalt at Dessau.
The document is not merely a repetition of the Angsburg Confes-
sion, but an adaptation of it to the changed condition of affairs. In
1530 Melanchthon still hoped for a reunion with Borne, and wrote in
an apologetic tone, avoiding all that might irritate the powerful enemy;
now all hope of reunion had departed, and Protestantism had made a
decided progress in ecclesiastical consolidation and independence. Al-
though the Confession was composed after the defeat of the Protestant
Princes by the Emperor, and in the midst of the Adiaphoristic troubles,
it shows no disposition whatever to recede from the doctrinal positions
taken at Augsburg ; on the contrary, the errors and abuses of Home,
which made separation an imperative duty, are freely exposed and re-
futed. The Scriptures, as understood by the ancient Church in the
oecumenical Creeds, are declared to be the only and unalterable foun-
dation of the Evangelical faith.1 The distinctive Evangelic doctrines
and usages in opposition to Koine are comprehended under the two
articles of the Apostles' Creed : c I believe the forgiveness of sins/ and
cone holy Catholic Church.' The former excludes human merit and
justification by works ; the latter the political and secular conceptions
and corruptions of the Church, which is represented to be a spiritual
though visible communion of believers in Christ. The controverted
articles are considered in twenty -three sections, in the order of the
Angsburg Confession, namely : Original Sin, Forgiveness and Justifi-
cation, Free Will, Good Works, IsTew Obedience, the Church, the Sac-
raments, Satisfaction, Marriage, Monastic Life, Invocation of Saints,
Civil Magistrate. The Saxon Confession is signed, not by Princes, as
the Augsburg Confession was, but, as Melanchthon suggested, only by
theologians, viz., Bugenhagen, Pf efiinger, Camerarius, Major, Eber, Me-
lanchthon, and the Superintendents of Electoral Saxony, who con-
vened at Wittenberg, July 9, for the purpose, and unanimously adopt-
ed the work of their dear and venerable ' Preceptor,' as the clear ex-
pression of their own faith in full harmony with his Confession of
1530. It was a beautiful moment in Melanchthon's life, for which he
1 Art I. De doctrina : 'Affirmamus dare, coram Deo et universa Ecclesia in ccelo et in terra,
nos vera fide amphcti omnia SCRIPT A PKOPHETARTJM ET APOSTOLORUM : et quidem in hae
tpsa nativa sententia qua expressa est in Symbolis, APOSTOLICO, NIG-JENO et ATHANASIANO.*
§ 47. SUPERSEDED LUTHERAN SYMBOLS, ETC. 343
felt very grateful to God.1 The danger was DOW much greater than
in 1530, for the Elector Maurice was in league with the victorious Em-
peror. The theologians of Brandenburg, Ansbach, Baireuth, Mansfeld,
Pomerania, Palatinate, Hesse, Wiirtemburg, and Strasburg likewise sent
in their consent to this Confession.2
The Council convened in May, 1551, was adjourned to October, and
again to January next. Melanchthon was ordered to proceed to Trent,
but to stop at Nuremberg for further instructions. While at Nurem-
berg, in January, 1552, he wrote a preface to Luther's Commentary on
Genesis, and expressed himself very decidedly against the preceding
acts of the Council.3 In the mean time the Saxon and Wiirtemberg
lay-embassadors received a hearing at Trent, not, indeed, before the
whole Council in public session, but before a private congregation.
They requested that the members of the Council be released of their
oath of obedience to the Pope, and be free to decide the questions by
the rule of the Scriptures alone. A few prelates were inclined to ac-
cede, but the majority would never have sacrificed the principle of tra-
dition, nor reconsidered the decrees already adopted. The Saxon em-
bassadors urged Melanchthon to proceed on his journey, but he delayed
on account of the rumors of war. The treacherous Elector Maurice
of Saxony cut the Gordian knot by making war upon his ally, the Em-
peror, in the spring, 1552, drove him from Innspruck, scared the fathers
of Trent to their homes, and achieved, in the Treaty of Passau (Aug.
2,1552), ratified at Augsburg (1555), the first victory for liberty of con-
science to Protestants, to which the Emperor reluctantly yielded, and
against which the Pope never ceases to protest.
II. The WURTEMBEBG CONFESSION (CoNFESSIO WtTRTEMBERG-ICA)4 was
1 See Ms letter to Prince George of Anhalt, July 11, 1551, Corp. Reform. Vol. VII. p. 806
sq., and the letter of Major to Jonas, July 14, ibid. p. 809.
3 See Heppe, 1. c. p. xxvii., and especially the Corpus et Syntagma Conf., which gives after
the subscriptions the assenting judgments of the churches above mentioned.
3 Jan. 25, 1552, Corp. Reform. Vol. VII. pp. 91 8-927.
* The full title, as given by Heppe and Bindseil, is {CONFES|SIO PL® DOCTRI|NJB, qvc&
nomine iUu\strissiini Principis ac Domini CHRI|STOPHORI Ducis Wirtembergen\sis et Teccen-
«"s, ac Comitis Montisbe\tigardi^ per legatos ejus Die XXIIII. \ mensis Januarij, Anno
jfDLIL Con\gregationi Tridentini Conci\lii proposita est.' It was first printed at Tubingen,
1551 ; then in 1556, 1559, 1561, etc. It is also embodied in the Opera Brentii, Tubingen,
1590, Tom. VIII. pp. 1-34, in Corpus et Syntagma Conf. (from a Frankfort ed. of 1561), and
in Heppe, 1. c. pp. 491-554. It is frequently quoted in part under different heads, together
s-ith the Saxon Confession, in the Reformed ffarmonia Confessionum, Genev. 1581. Comp.
YOL. I.— Z
344 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
prepared for the same purpose, at the same time and in the same spirit,
by Brentius, the Reformer of the Duchy of Wiirtemberg, in the name
of his Prince, Duke Christopher, who likewise resolved to send dele-
gates to the Council of Trent. For Brentius, like Melanchthon, had
no confidence in this partial popish Council, but advised, nevertheless,
compliance with the Emperor's request, since a refusal might be con-
strued as disobedience and contempt, or as an act of cowardice. The
Confession was approved by a commission of ten Swabian divines,
and by the City of Strasburg. It was also approved at Wittenberg, as
agreeing with Melanchthon's Confession. It was found best to send
two Confessions, one representing the Evangelical Churches of the
North, the other those of the South of Germany, to avoid the appear-
ance of a conspiracy.
The Wiirtemberg Confession contains a preface of Duke Christopher,
and restates, in thirty-five articles, the doctrines of the Augsburg Con-
fession and other controverted points, for the purpose of showing that
the Evangelical Churches agree with the pure doctrine of the apostles,
and of the catholic and orthodox Church.1 On the Lord's Supper this
Confession goes a little beyond the Saxon ; but there is no trace of the
ubiquity of Christ's body, of which Brentius, ten years afterwards, be-
came a zealous advocate.
' Brentius was among the Wiirtemberg and Strasburg delegates to
Trent, and actually arrived there, March 18, 1552, but only to return
in April without accomplishing any thing.2 It is very doubtful whether
he and Melauchthon would have made a deep impression upon the Coun-
cil, which was already committed to the cause of popery and had sanc-
tioned some of its most obnoxious doctrines.
et scripta publica Ecdesia Wirtembergicce,Tuh. 1720; Salig, Historie der Augsb.
Conf. Tom. I. pp. 673 sqq.; and Hartmann, Johannes Brentz. Leben und ausgewahlte Schriften
(Elberfeld, 1862), pp. 211-221.
1 Frefat. : 'In nostris ecclesiis non nisi vera apostolicce, cathoticce, et orthodoxcs doctrines
locum datum esse. '
* See Sleidanns,-De statu rdig. et reipublica Carolo V. Ccesare commentar. Tom. III. pp. 317-
333 ; Corp. Reform. Vol. XXVIII. p. 334-, and Hartmann, 1. c. p. 215. The other theological
delegates to Trent were Beurlin, Heerbrand, Vannins (Wanner), of Wurtemberg, and Mar*
bach and Sellios, of Strasburg. Sleidanus was one of the lay-delegates from Strasburg.
§ 48. THE SAXON VISITATION ARTICLES, 1592. 345
§ 48. THE SAXON VISITATION ARTICLES, 1592.
Literature.
ABTICTTLI VISTTATORH, Anno Christi 1592 in Electoratu et Provindia wperioris Soxonicepublicati, et Judfr
fftbus Con tetoriorwn, Superintendentibus, Minfetris ecclesiarum et scholarum, nee non Admintetratoribus
bonorum eccleiyiasticorwm^ quin et ipsis Patronte et CoUatoribus ad subscribendum et servandum propo&iti
et demandati. They are printed in Corp. juris eccles. Saxonic^ Dresden, 1778, p. 256, and added to Ease's
edition of the Lutheran Symbols, pp. 862-866, the Berlin edition of the Concordfa (1857), pp. 849-854, and
Miiller's Symb. Bucher, pp. 779-784.
Grundliche Verantwortung der vier streitiffen Artikel, etc. Leipzig, 1593.
A. HUNNIUS: Widerlegung des Calvinisehen Buchleins wider die vier Artikelt 1593.
Comp. SOHEOBKH : Kirchengesehtehte seit der ]&forrnation> VoL IV. pp. 660 sqq. ; HENKE : Art. Hunnius
in Herzog, Vol. VI pp. 316-321; MULDER: Symb. J38dter,pp.cxxi. (Introd.) sqq.; G. FRANK: Geschichte der
Protest. TheoUgie (1864), Vol. L pp. 290 sqq.
The FOUR ARTICLES OF VISITATION of Electoral Saxony owe their ori-
gin to the revival and second overthrow of Crypto-Calvinisin, and reflect
the fierceness and bitterness of this contest1 They continued in force
till the present century, but never extended their authority beyond Sax-
ony. They are strongly anti-Calvinistic, and may be regarded as an
Appendix to the Formula of Concord, with which they fully agree.
They were written in 1592, and first published in German in 1593.2
Their object was to perpetuate the reign of exclusive Lutheranism.
They are based on the articles of a Colloquy between Andrese and Beza
at Mompelgard (1586). The chief author was Dr. AEGmms Hmnmrs,
one of the foremost Lutheran divines of his age, a native of Winnen-
den in the Duchy of Wiirtemberg, professor of theology at Marburg
(1576-1592), and afterwards at Wittenberg (d. 1603).3 He was com-
missioned with several others to visit the churches and schools of Sax-
ony for the purpose of suppressing every trace of Crypto-Calvinism.
All clergymen and teachers, and even the civil officers, were required
to subscribe the four Articles or lose their places. A great feast of
thanksgiving closed the visitation.
The hardest fate was reserved for Chancellor Crell, who, after ten
years' imprisonment, was executed (1601), ostensibly for political of-
1 See above, p. 283.
* Under the title : 'Visitation- Artikel im gantzen Churkreiss Sachsen. Sampt derer Cal-
vinisten Negativa und Gegenlehr, und die Form der Subscription, wekhergestalt dieselbe bey-
den Partheien si^ti zu unterschreiben sind vorgelegt worden.1
3 He was aided in the composition by Mart. Mirns, George Mylius, and Joshua Lonnerus.
Minis was called by Hospinian 'Inquisitor Saxonice,' because, as the Lutherans explained
this term of reproach, he cleaned the Lord's vineyard of cunning foxes and wild hogs. His
last wish was to die an enemy of Calvinists and Pa»ists, Frank, 1, c. Vol. I. p. 296.
34:6 THE CKEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
fenses, but really for opinions which were once honored by the name
of Philip Melanchthon. The preachers who attended this auto-da-fe
of hyper-Lutheran orthodoxy told Orell that by his wicked Calvinism
he had caused in many cases a dangerous delay of infant baptism, un-
dermined the authority of the ministry, and deserved the fire of hell.
They laughed at his prayer on the scaffold ; whereupon he prayed to
God not to change their laughter into weeping. The executioner, hold-
ing the severed head high up in the air, said : ' This was a Calvinistic
stroke.3 1
The four Articles give a very clear and explicit summary of those
peculiar doctrines which distinguish the Lutheran creed from those of
all other Protestant churches. The first refers to the Lord's Supper,
and teaches the real presence and oral fruition of the true and natural
body of Christ by all communicants. The second treats of the Person
of Christ, and teaches, in support of the eucharistic omnipresence, the
communication of the attributes whereby the human nature of Christ
became partaker of the whole majesty, honor, power, and glory of his
divine nature. The third teaches baptismal regeneration and the ordi-
nary necessity of baptism for salvation.2 The fourth teaches the uni-
versal atonement, and the vocation of all men to salvation, with the
possibility of a total and final fall from grace.
In the negative part the opposite doctrines of the Calvinists are re-
jected. These were henceforth held in perfect abhorrence in Saxony,
and it was a common proverb, * Rather a Papist than a Calvinist.33
1 See Frank, Vol. I. p. 297, and Henke's monograph on Casp. Peucer und Nic. Crell, 1865.
2 Baptism, was performed with exorcism in Lutheran churches, and it was counted one of
the chief crimes of the Crypto-Calvinists that they abolished this rite. A Saxon pastor who
baptized without exorcism gave great offense to the peasants, who cried after him : ' The
naughty priest has not expelled the devil* (Z)«r lose Pfaffe hat den Teufel nicht ausgetrieben).
3 It is almost incredible to what extent the Lutheran bigotry of those days carried its hatred
of Zwinglianism and Calvinism, We give a few characteristic specimens. Schliisselburg
(Superintendent of Ratzeburg), one of the most learned champions of Lutheran orthodoxy,
in his Theologies Oalvinistarum Libri Tres, Prancoforti ad Mcenum, 1 592, tries to prove that
the Calvinists are unsound in almost every article of the Christian faith (* Sacramentarios de
nullofere doctrines Christiana articulo recte senftYe'), and has a special chapter to show that
the Calvinistic writings overflow with mendaciis, calumniis, conviciis, makdictis, et contumeliis.
He regards many of their doctrines as downright blasphemy. Philip Nikolai, a pious Lutheran
pastor at TJnna, afterwards at Hamburg, and author of two of the finest German hymns (' Wie
Mchon leuchtet der MorgensternJ and 'Wacket auf! ruft uns die Stimme1^ called the God of
the Calvinists *a roaring bull (Wucherstier und Brullochs), a bloodthirsty Moloch, a hellish
Behemoth and Leviathan, a fiend of men !' (Kurtzer Bericht von der Calvinisten Gott und
ihrer Religion, Ifrkf. 1597; Die erst Victoria, Triumph und Freitdenjubel uber des Calvin.
§ 48. THE SAXON VISITATION ARTICLES, 1592. 347
As the Articles are a very clear and succinct statement of the spe-
cific doctrines of Lutheranism as opposed to Calvinism, and not easy
of access, they are here given in full :
ABTICTJLUS L
J}e Sacra Gcena.
PURA ET VERA DOCTRINA NOSTRARUM ECCLESIARUM DE SACRA CO3NA.
I. Quod, verba Christi : 'Accipite et cornedite, hoc est corjnts meum: Bibite, hie est sanguis
meus, simpliciter, et secundum literam, sicut sonant, intelligenda sint.
II. Quod in Sacramento duae res sint, quae exhibentur et simul accipiuntur : una terrena,
quse est panis et vinum ; et una coelestis, quae est corpus et sanguis Christi.
III. Quod haec Unio, Kxhibitio et Sumptio fiat hie inferius in terris, nou superius in coelis.
IV. Quod exhibeatur et accipiatur verum et naturale corpus Christi, quod in cruce pepen-
dit, et verus ac naturalis sanguis, qui ex Christi latere fluxit.
V. Quod corpus et sanguis Christi non fide tantum spiritualiter, quod etiam extra Coenam
fieri potest, sed cum pane et vino oraliter, modo tamen imperscrutabili et supernaturali, illic
in Ccena accipiantur, idque in pignus et certificationem resurrectionis nostrorum corporum ex
mortuis.
VI. Quod oralis perceptio corporis et sanguinis Christi non solum fiat a dignis, verum etiam
ab indignis, qui sine pcenitentia et vera fide accedunt ; eventu tamen diverse. A dignis enim
percipitur ad salutem, ab indignis autem ad judicium.
AETICULTJS IL
De Persona Christi.
PURA ET VERA DOCTRINA NOSTRARUM ECCLESIARUM DE HOC ARTICULO, DE PERSONA
CHRISTI.
I. In Christo sunt duse distinctae Naturae, divina et humana. H» manent in seternum in*
confnsae et inseparabiles (seu indivisae).
II. Hae duae Naturae personaliter ita sunt invicem unitae, ut unus tantum sit Christus. et
una Persona.
III. Propter hanc personalem Unionem recte dicitur, atque in re et veritate ita se habet,
quod Deus Homo, et Homo Deus sit, quod Maria Filium Dei genuerit, et quod Deus nos per
proprium suum sanguinem redemerit.
Geistes Niederlag, 1600 ; Oalvinischer VitsliputsK, etc. See Frank, Vol. I. p. 280. Provost
Magirus, of Stuttgart, thought that the Calvinists imitated at times the language of Luther, as
the hyena the human voice, for the destruction of men. John Modest wrote a book to prove
that the Sacramentarians are no Christians, but baptized Jews and Mohammedans (' Beweis
aus der keiligen Schrift doss die Sacramentirer nicht Christen sind, sondern getaufte Juden und
Mahometisten, Jena, 1586). John Pr'atorius, in a satire (Calvinisch Gasthaus zur Narren-
kayffen^ etc.), distinguishes open Calvinists, who have no more sense than a horse or an ass j
secret Calvinists, who fish in the dark; and several other classes (see Frank, Vol. I. p. 282 sq.;.
The second Psalm, speaking of the rebellion against Jehovah and his Anointed, was applied
to the Calvinists, and their condemnation was embodied in catechisms, hymns, and populai
rhymes, of which the following are fair specimens :
* Erhalt urn, H&rr, bei deinem Wort
Und wehr der Calvinisten Mord.1
( Wenn ein Calmnist spricht, Gott gruss dich,
So w&wcht sein Herz, der Tod hoi dich.'
1 Gottes Wort und Luther'a Lehr
Vergehet nun und nimmermehr,
Und oVs gleich li&se noch so sehr
Die Calvinisten an ihrer Ehr.'
1 Gottes Wort und Lutheri Schnft
Sind des Papsts und Calmni Gtft.'
848 THE CEEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
IV. Per hanc Unionem personalem, et quae earn, secuta est, exaltationem, Christus
dum carnem ad dexteram Dei collocatus est, et accepit omnem potestatem in coelo et in terra,
factusque est particeps omnis divinae majestatis, honoris, potentiae et glorias.
ABTICTJLUS ILL
De 8. Haptismo.
PURA ET VBRA DOCTRINA NOSTRARUM ECCLESIARUM DE HOC ARTICULO S. BAPTISMATIS.
I. Quod unum tantum Baptisma sit, et una ablutio, non quae sordes corporis tollere solet,
sed quae nos a peccatis abluit.
II. Per Baptismum tanquam lavacrum illud regenerationis et renovationis Spiritus Sancti
salvos nos facit Deus et operatur in nobis talem justitiam et purgationem a peccatis, ut qui in
eo foedere et fiducia usque ad finem perseverat, non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam.
III. Omnes, qui in Christum Jesum baptizati sunt, in mortem ejus baptizati sunt, et per
Baptismum cum ipso in mortem ejus consepulti sunt, et Christum induerunt.
IV". Baptismus est lavacrum illud regenerationis, propterea, quia in eo renascimur denno et
Spiritu Adoptionis obsignamur ex gratia (sive gratis).
V. Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu, non potest introire in regnum coelorum.
Casus tamen necessitatis hoc ipso non intenditur.
VI. Quicquid de carne nascitur, caro est, et natura sumus omnes filii irse divinae : quia ex
semine peccaminoso sumus geniti, et in peccatis concipimur omnes.
ABTICDLTJS IV.
De Praedestinatione et ceterna Providentia Dei.
FtTRA ET VERA DOCTRINA NOSTRARUM ECCLESIARUM DE HOC ARTICtTLO.
I. Quod Christus pro omnibus hominibus mortuus sit, et ceu Agnus Dei totius mundi pec-
cata sustulerit.
II. Quod Deus neminem ad condemnationem condiderit, sed relit, ut omnes homines salvi
fiant et ad agnitionem veritatis perveniant, propterea omnibus mandat, ut Filium suum Chri-
stum in Evangelic audiant, et per hunc auditum promittit virtutem et operationem Spiritus
Sancti ad conversionem et salutem.
III. Quod mulci homines propria culpa pereant : alii, qui Evangelium de Christo nolunt
audire, alii, qui iterum excidunt gratia, sive per errores contra fundamental, sive per peccata
contra conscientiam.
IV. Quod omnes peccatores poenitentiam agentes in gratiam recipiantur, et nemo excluda-
tur,etsi peccata ejus rubeant ut sanguisj quandoquidem Dei misericordia major est, quam
peccata totius mundi, et Dens omnium suonim operum miseretur.
SEQITITUB FALSA ET EBBONBA DOCTBJNA CALVTNISTABTJM
De Sacra Coma.
I. Quod supra posita verba Christi figurate intelligenda sint, et non secundum literam,
sicut sonant.
II. Quod in Coena tantum nuda signa sint, corpus autem Christi tarn procul a pane, quam
supremum coelam a terra.
III. Quod Christus iilic praesens sit tantum virtute et operatione sua, et non corpore suo.
Quemadmodum sol splendore et operatione sua in terris praesens et efficax est, corpus autem
solare superius in coelo existit.
IV. Corpus Christi esse typicum corpus, quod pane et vino tantum significetur et prasfigu-
retur.
V. Quod sola fide, quae in coslum se elevet, et non ore, accipiatur.
VI. Quod soli digni illud accipiant, indigni autem, qui talem fidem evolantem sursum in
eoelos non habent, nihil praeter panem et vinum accipiant.
FALSA ET EBBONEA DOOTBINA CALYINISTABTJM
De Persona CAristi,
POTISSIMUM HI. ET IV. ARTICULO PURIORIS DOCTRIN2E BEPTJGNAT.
I. Quod Deus Homo, et Homo Deus est, esse figuratam locutionem.
II. Quod humana Natura cum divina non in re et veritate, sed tantum nomine et verbis
cojnmunionem habeat»
§ 49, AN ABORTIVE SYMBOL AGAINST SYNCRETISM, 1665.
III. Quod Deo impossibile sit ex tota omnipotentia sua prsestare, ut corpus Christ! naturals
ttmul et instantanee in pluribus, quam in unico loco sit.
IV. Quod Christus secundum humanam Naturam per exaltationem suam tantum creata
dona et finitam potentiam acceperit, non omnia sciat aut possit.
V. Quod Christus secundum Humanitatem absens regnet, sicut Rex Hispaniae novas In-
sulas regit.
VI. Quod damnabilis idololatria sit, si fiducia et fides cordis in Christum non solum se-
cundum divinam, sed etiam secundum humanam ipsius Naturam collocetur, et honor adora-
tionis ad utramque dirigatur.
FALSA ET EBRONEA DOCTKTNA CALVINISTARUM
De Sacro JSaptismo.
I. Baptismum ease externum lavacrum aquae, per quod interaa qusedam ablutio a peccatis
tantum significetur.
II. Baptisraum non operari neque conferre regenerationem, fidem, gratiam Dei et salutem,
sed tantum significare et obsignare ista.
III. Non omnes, qui aqua baptiztntur, consequi eo ipso gratiam Christi aut donum fidei
sed tantum electos.
IV. Begenerationem non fieri in, vel cum Baptismo, sed postea demum crescente aetate,
imo et multis in senectute demum contingere.
V.^ Salutem non dependere a Baptismo, atque ideo Baptismum in causa necessitatis non
permittendum esse in Ecclesia, sed in defectu ordinarii Ministri Ecelesiae permittendum esse,
ut infans sine Baptismo moriatur.
VI. Christianorum infantes jam ante Baptismum esse sanctos, ab utero matris, imo adhuc
in utero materno constitutes esse in foedere vitae seternse casteroqui Sacrum Baptisma ipsis
eonferri non posse.
FALSA ET EEEONEA DocTitrsrA CALYINISTARIJM
De Prcedestinatione et Providentia Dei.
I. Christum non pro omnibus hominibus, sed pro solis electis mortuum esse.
II. Deum potissimam partem hominum ad damnationem aeternam creasse, et nolle, ut
potissima pars convertatur et vivat.
III. Electos et regenitos non posse fidem et Spiritum Sanctum amittere, aut damnari,
quamvis omnis geneiis grandia peccata et flagitia committant.
IV. Eos vero, qui electi non sunt, necessario damnari, nee posse pervenire ad salutem,
etiamsi millies baptizarentur, et quotidie ad Eucharistiam accederent, prseterea vitam tain
sancte atque inculpate ducerent, quantum unquam fieri potest.
§ 49. AN ABORTIVE SYMBOL AGAINST SYNCRETISM, 1655.
Finally, we must briefly notice an unsuccessful attempt to increase
the number of Lutheran symbols which was made during the Syn-
cretistic controversies in the middle of the seventeenth century.1
GEORGE CALIXTUS (1586 to 1656), Professor of Theology in the Uni-
versity of Helmstadt (since 1614), which had previously protested against
1 H. SCHMID : Geschichte der Synkretistischen Streitigkeiten in der Zeit des Georg Calixt,
Erlangen, 1846. W. GASS : G. Calixt und der Synkretismus, Breslau, 1846 ; and his Ge-
schichte der Protest. Dogmatik, Vol. II. p. 68. BAUR : Ueber den Charakter und die Bedev-
iling des calixtin. Synkretismus, in the Theol Jahrbucher for 1 848, p. 1 63. E. L. TH. HENKE :
G. Calixtus und seine Zeit, Halle, 1853-1860, 2 vols. ; and his Art. Synkretismus and Syn>
kretistische Streitigkeiten, in Herzog, Vol. XV. (1862), pp. 342 and 346. G. FKANK: G*
schichte der Protest. Theologie. Leipz. Vol. II. 1865, p. 4.
350 THE CEEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
the ubiquity dogma of the Formula of Concord, was disgusted with the
exclusive and pugnacious orthodoxy of his day, and advocated, in the
liberal and catholic spirit of Melanchthon, peace and conciliation
among the three great Confessions — the Lutheran, Catholic, and Re-
formed. He went back to the Apostles5 Creed and the oecumenical
consensus of the first five centuries (consensus quinquesecularis) as a
common basis for all, claiming for the Lutheran Church only a supe-
rior purity of doctrine, and surrendering as unessential its distinctive
peculiarities. This reaction against sectarian exclusiveness and in
favor of Catholic expansion within the Lutheran communion was de-
nounced by the orthodox divines of Wittenberg and Leipzig as Syn-
cretism, i. e., as a Babylonian mixture of all sorts of religions, or a
Samaritan compound of Popish, Calvinistic, Synergistic, Arminian,
and even atheistic errors. A war to the knife was waged against it,
and lasted from 164:5 to 1686. Calixtus had expressed a hope to
meet many Calvinists in heaven, but this was traced directly to an
inspiration of the devil.
The chief opponent of Syncretism was ABBAHAM CALOVHTS, the
fearless champion of an infallible orthodoxy, admired by some as
the Lutheran Athanasius, abhorred by others as the Lutheran Torque-
mada; in his own estimation a strenuus Christi athleta, certainly a
veritable malleus hcereticorum ; of vast learning and a herculean
working power, which no amount of domestic affliction could break
down.1 His daily prayer was, 'JSeple me, Deus, odio hcereticorum?
1 Abraham Calov (properly Kalau) was born in 1612 at Mohnmgen, Prussia (the birth-
place of the great Herder — 'Esau and Jacob from one womb'), and labored with untiring
industry as Professor and General Superintendent at Wittenberg from 1650 to his death,
1686. He stood in high esteem, and controlled the whole faculty, except Meisner, who fell
out with him in 1675, so that they no more greeted each other, not even at the communion
altar. The Elector, George II., always stayed at his house when he was at Wittenberg.
Calovius wrote a system of theology, in twelve volumes (Sy sterna locorum theolog. 1655-1677),
a Commentary on the whole Bible against Grotius, in four folios (Biblia illustrata, 1672),
and an endless number of polemical works against ancient and modern heretics, some of
which had to be prohibited. His domestic history is perhaps without a parallel. He buried
no less than thirteen children and five wives in succession. At the death-bed of the fourth
he sang with all his might the hymn, 4 Wie schSn. leuchtet der MorgensternJ especially (as
Tholuck relates) the last stanza, tWie bin ich dock so herzlich froh,' etc. He asked her
whether she were willing to go to her Lord ; she replied : lHerr Jesu, dir leb' ich, Herr Jesu,
dir sterV ich.9 A few months after the death of his fifth partner, when seventy-two years
of age (f'senili amore, morbo nequaguam senili, vehementer laboransj and 'maxima cum multorum
qffensione"), he kd to the altar the youthful daughter of his colleague, Quenstadt. A friend
§ 49. AN ABORTIVE SYMBOL AGAINST SYNCRETISM, 1655. 351
He excluded Calixtus, as well as Bellarmin, Calvin, and Socinus, f rom
heaven. As the best means of suppressing this complex syncretistic
heresy, and of preventing a schism in the Lutheran Church, he prepared
in 1655 a Repeated Consensus of the truly Lutheran Faith, which was
finally published in Latin and German at Wittenberg in 1664.1
This creed first professes and teaches, in the order of the Augsburg
Confession, the orthodox doctrine, and then rejects and condemns no
less than eighty-eight syncretistic heresies, proved from the writings of
Calixtus, Hornejus, Latermann, and Dreier. The first fundamental
section anathematizes the Calixtine concession of the imperfection of the
Lutheran Church, the relative recognition of Catholics and Calvinists
as Christian brethren, and the assertion of the necessity of Church tradi-
tion alongside of the Scriptures. The following doctrines are rejected,
not simply as doubtful, erroneous, or dangerous opinions (which some
of them are), but as downright heresies : That the article of the Trinity
is not clearly revealed in the Old Testament; that the Holy Spirit
dwells in believers as a gift, not as an essence ; that theology need
not prove the existence of God, since it is already certain from phi-
of Spener wrote to the latter, May 10, 1684 Cas quoted by Tholuck) : 'The septuagenarian
senex consularis has prostituted himself strongly intra and extra ecclesiam. What is the use
of all learning, if one can not control his appetites ? He is said to be so debilitated that he
can not walk five steps sine lassitudine.' Calovius enjoyed his sixth marriage only two years.
For a full account of him, see THOUICK, Wittenberger Theokgen, 1852, pp. 185-211, and his
Art. Calov, in Herzog, Vol. II. p. 506 ; also GASS, Geschichte der protest. Dogm. Vol. I. p.
332 ; and G. FRANK, Vol. II. p. 26. Tholuck characterizes him thus ( W. Theol. p. 207) :
* Gemuthhse Zahigkeit bei innerlich kochender Leidenschaftlichkeit erscheint ak Grundzug
dieses theologischen Charakters; weder auf der Kanzel, noch in vertraulichen Brief en, noch
in den theologischen Schriften ein Lebenshauch christlicher, selten auch nur menschlicher
Warme. Die Menschen erscheinen ihm wie Zahlen, und unt&r den dogmatischen ProUemen
bewegt er sich wie unter RechenexempelnS
1 ' Consensus repetitus fidei vere Luther ance in illis doctrines capitibus, qua contra pur am et
invariatam Augustanam Confissionem aliosque libros symbolicos in Libro Concordice compre-
hensos, scriptis publicis impugnant I). G. Calixtus^ ejusque complices.* First published in the
Consilia Theologica Wittebergensia, \ 664, then often separately by Calovius. A new edition
by the late Prof. HENKE of Marburg: Consensus repetitus fidei verce Lutheran^ M&GLV.
Librorum ecclesice evangelicca symbolicorum suppleinentum^ Marbnrg, 1847 (pp. viii. and 70).
For a summary, see H. SCHMID, 1. c. pp. 376 sqq., and FRANK, 1. c. VoL II. pp. 12 sqq. Calo-
vius wrote no less than twenty-eight books against the Syncretists, the principal of which are
Syncretismus Caltxtinus, 1653; Synopsis controversiarum . . . cum hcereticis et schismaticis
modernis Sorinianis, Anabaptistis, Weigelianis, Remonstrantibus, Pontifitws, Calvinianis,
Calixtinis, etc. 1652; and Harmonia Calixtino-hosretica, etc., 1655. See H. SCHMID, 1. c. p.
237, who with all his orthodox sympathies complains of the endless repetitions and prolixity
of these controversial writings. They are almost unreadable. I have before me a defense of
the Consensus Repetitus, by Aegidius Straucher. W'tenb. 1669 (551 pp.), the mere title of
which covers twentar-mne lines
352 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
losophy ; that Jews and M ohammedans are not idolaters ; that original
sin is simply a carentiajustitice; that souls are created by God (crea-
tionism) ; that Christ's body is not omnipresent ; that sanctification en-
ters in any way into the idea of justification ; that the true Church em-
braces also Calvinists, Papists, and Greeks ; that infants have no faith ;
that John vi. treats of the Lord's Supper; that man is active in his
conversion; that symbolical books are to be only conditionally sub-
scribed quatenus ScripturcB S. consentiunt ; that the symbols contain
many things as necessary to salvation, which God has not fixed as such ;
that unbaptized infants are only negatively punished ; that good works
are necessary to obtain eternal life. A prayer that God may avert all
innovations and corruptions from the Orthodox Church, and preserve
it in this repeated consensus, forms the conclusion.
This new symbol goes far beyond the Formula of Concord, and
would have so contracted Lutheranism as to exclude from it all inde-
pendent thought and theological progress. It prolonged and intensified
the controversy, but nowhere attained ecclesiastical authority. It was
subscribed only by the theological faculties of Wittenberg and Leipzig,
and rejected by the theologians of Jena, who were pupils of the cele-
brated John Gerhard, and occupied a milder position. With the death
of Calovius the controversy died out, and his symbol was buried be-
yond the hope of a resurrection. Orthodoxy triumphed, but it was
only a partial victory, and the last which it achieved.
During these violent controversies and the awful devastations of the
Thirty -Tears5 War, there arose among a few divines in the Lutheran,
Reformed, and Catholic Churches an intense desire for the reunion of
Christendom, which found its expression in the famous adage so often
erroneously attributed to St. Augustine : c In necessariis unitas, in
dubiis lib&rtas, in omnibus cwritas? * It had no practical effect, but
sounds like a prophecy of better times.
Soon afterwards arose a second and more successful reaction in the
Pietism of Spener and Francke, which insisted on the claims of practi-
cal piety against a dead orthodoxy in the Lutheran Church, just as the
school of Coccejus did in the Reformed Church of Holland, and the
1 Dr. Lticke (in a special treatise, Gottingen, 1850) traces the authorship with some de-
gree of certainty to Rupert Meldenius, who belonged to the irenical school of the seventeenth
century. Comp. Klose, in Herzog, Vol. IX. p. 304.
§ 49. AN ABORTIVE SYMBOL AGAINST SYNCRETISM, 1655. 353
Methodism of Wesley and Whitefield in the Church of England. Then
followed, toward the close of the eighteenth century, the far more radi-
cal reaction of Rationalism, which broke down, stone by stone, the
venerable building of Lutheran orthodoxy, and the whole traditional
system of Christian doctrine. Rationalism, in its various forms and
phases, laid waste whole sections of Germany, especially those where
once a rigorous orthodoxy had most prevailed ; it affected also the Re-
formed churches of the Continent, and, in a less degree, those of En-
gland and America. Fortunately the power of this great modern apos-
tasy has been broken, in the nineteenth century, by an extensive revival
of the principles of the Reformation, with a better appreciation of its
Confessions of Faith, not so much in their subordinate differences as
in their essential harmony.
354: THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
SEVENTH CHAPTER
THE CREEDS OF THE EVANGELICAL REFORMED CHURCHES.
§ 50. THE REFORMED CONFESSIONS.
Literature.
I. COLLECTIONS OF REFORMED SYMBOLS.
HABMONIA { CONFESSIONUM [ FIDEI | ORTHODOXARUM, ET REFORMATARUM EOCLESIARUM, ] qua in prce*
cipuis quibusgue Europce Regnis, Sationibus, et Provinces, sacram KvangeHi doctrinam pure profttentur:
quarum catalogum et ordinem sequentes pagince indicabunt. \ Additce sunt ad calcem brevivsimce observa-
tions: quibus turn illustrantur obscura, turn qua in speciem pugnare inter se videri possunt, perspicue
atque modestissime conciliantur : et si qitce adhuc controversa manent, syncere indieantur. \ Qitce omnia,
JScclesiarum Gallicarutn, et Belgicarum nomine, subjiduntur libero et prudenti reliquarum (minium ju-
dicto. Geneva apud Petrnm Santandreanum. MDLXXXI. (4to).
This is the first attempt at comparative Dogmatics or Symbolics. It grew out of a desire for one
common Creed, which was modified into the idea of a selected harmony. In this shape it was proposed
by the Protestants of Zurich and Geneva, intrusted to Beza, Danean, and Salnar (or Salnard, or Salvart,
minister of the Church of Castres), and chiefly executed by the last of the three. It was intended as a
defense of Protestant, and particularly Reformed, doctrine against the constant attacks of Romanists
and Lutherans. It does not give the Confessions in full, but extracts from them on the chief articles of
faith, which are classified under nineteen sections. It anticipates Winer's method, but for harmonistic
purposes. Besides the principal Reformed Confessions, three Lutheran Confessions are also used, viz.,
the Angsbnrg, the Saxon, and the Wiirtemberg Confessions. The work appeared almost simultaneously
with the Lutheran Formula of Concord, and may be called a Reformed Formula of Concord, though
differing from the former in being a mere compilation from previous symbol?. (I imported a well-
bound copy, which seems to have been the property of the Elector John Casimir, whose likeness and
escutcheon are impressed on the cover. He suggested the preparation of such a work.)
An English translation of this irenicwork appeared first at Cambridge, 1586 (12mo), and then again in
London, 1643 (4to), under the title: *AN HARMONY OF TIIE CONFESSIONS OF FAITH OF THE CHRISTIAN ANI>
REFORMED CHURCHES, which purely prefers the holy doctrine of the Gospel, in all the chief fa'iigdoms, na-
tions, and provinces of Europe, etc. Att which thing*, in the names of the Churches of France and Belgia,
are submitted to the free and discreet judgment of all the Churches. Xewly translated out of Latin into
English, etc. Allowed by public authority.1 According to Strype (Annals of the Rcfoi-mation, ad a. 1580),
Archbishop Whitgift, owing to some jealousy among publishers, first forbade the publication of the
Harmony, but afterwzirds allowed it.
A new edition by Rev. PETER HALL (Rector of Milston, Wilts), under the modified title: THE HARMONY
OF PROTESTANT CONFESSIONS: exhibiting the Faith of the Churches of Christ, Reformed after the pure and
holy doctrine of the Gospel, throughout Europe. Translated from the Latin. A new edition, revised and
considerably enlarged. London, 1S42 (640 pages, large 8vo).
COBPUS ET SYNTAGMA j CONFEBSIONUM | FIDEI, | quce in diversis regnia et natfonibus, ecclesiarum nomine
fuerunt authentice editce : in celcbcrrimis conventions exhibitce, publicaque auctoritate comprobatce, etc.
(first ed. Aurelise Allobrog. 1612). Editio nova, Genevce, sumptibus Petri Chouet, 1654.
Tho first edition of this rare and valuable book was probably compiled by Gaspar Laurentius, who is
not named on the title-page, but who signs himself in the dedicatory Epistle to Elector Frederick HI.
of the Palatinate, before the • Orthodox Consensus1 (in Part IH.), and says, in the ' General Preface,' that
lie edited this Consensus a. 1595, and now (1612) in a much improved form. His object was th e same as that
of the Harmony, viz., to show the essential unity of the evangelical faith in the multiplicity and variety
of Confessions which, as the Preface says, in the absence of conspiracy, only strengthen the harmony, and
mutually illustrate and supplement each other, like many orthodox expositions of the Scriptures. The
second edition, of which I have a copy, is a large quarto volume, consisting of three main parts, the sev-
eral documents being paged separately. It contains the principal Reformed Confessions down to the
Synod of Dort, three Lutheran Confessions, and several other documents, as follows : 1. The Harmonia
sive Concordantia Confessionum Fidei per (xiii.) Artfculof} digesta, with the Symbolum Apostolicum, as the
basis of a general consensus, supported by Scripture texts and references to the various Confessions of
the collection (8 pp.) ; 2. Confessio Helvetica posterior, reprinted from a Zurich edition of 1651: 3. Confessio
Helvetica prior (or Bas&eensis Z/.), 1536 ; 4. Confessio Basileensis I. (or Mylhitsiana), 1532 ; 5. Confessio Gal-
lica, from the Latin edition of 1566 ; 6. Confessio Anglicana, 1562 ; 7. Confessio Scotica of 1560, and the second
of 1580; 8. Confessio Ecclesiarum Eelgicarum, 1559; 9. Confessio Czengerina, the Hungarian Confession,
1570; 10. Confessio Polonica, or Consensus Polontie (Sendomirensis^I&lQ', ll.Confessio Argentinensis S. Te-
trapolitana, 1531 ; 12. Confessio Attgustana, from the Wittenberg edition of 1540 ; 13. Confessio tia&onica,
s, ffisnica, 1551 ; 14. Confessio Wirtembwgica, 1552 ; 15. Confessio IllustrMmi Slectorw Palatini, Friderioi
§ 50. THE EEFOEMED CONFESSIONS. 355
///., 1576 ; 16. Confessio Sohemica (the first of the two Bohemian Confessions, which was presented to
King Ferdinand in 1536. It contains a Preface by Luther. The second was compiled 15T5) ; 17. Con-
sensus Ecclesiarum Majoris et Minoris Polonice, Lithuania, etc., 1583. Appended: Acta et Conclusiones
Synodi General-fa Thoruniensis ; 18. Articuli Co-nfessionis Basileemis of the year 1647; 19. Canones Synodi
Dordrechtance, 1619 ; 20. Confessio Cyrilli Patriarchs Constantinop., 1631 ; 21. Catholicus Consensus, viz.,
A Harmony of Christian Doctrine, compiled from the Scriptures and the writings of the Fathers, under
the following heads : (a) On the Word of God as the Eule of Faith ; (&) On God, the Trinitarian and Chris*
tological Doctrines ; (c) On Divine Providence ; (d) On the Head of the Church ; (J) On Justification ;
(/) On Free Will, Original Sin, Election and Predestination ; (g) On the Sacraments ; (h) On Idolatry,
the Worship of Images, etc. ; (z) On the True Way of Worshiping and Serving God; (fc) On the Church
and the Ministry ; (1) Kesurrection and the Future State.
CONFESSIONES FiBEi EooLESiABUM REFOBMATABUM. Greece et Lat. Ecclesiarum Belgicarum Con*
fessio, interpr. JAO. REVTO, et Catechesis interpr. F. SYLBBBGIO. Lngd. Bat. Elzev. 1635, 12mo ; Amstel.
1638, 12mo. Ultrajecti, 1660, and often. (This little volume contains a Greek translation of the Belgic
Confession by Revius, and a Greek translation of the Heidelberg Catechism by Sylburg, both with the
Latin text in the second column, for the use of schools in Holland.)
A COLLECTION OP CONFESSIONS OF FAITH, CATECHISMS, DIBEOTOBIES, BOOKS OF DISCIPLINE, etc., of Pub-
lick Authority in the Church of Scotland. Together with all the Acts of the Assembly which are Stand-
ing Rules concerning the Doctrine, Worship, Government, and Discipline of the Church of Scotland.
[By WILLIAM DUNLOP.] Edinburgh, 1719, 1722, in 2 vols. (A third volume was promised, but never ap-
peared, as far as I know.) This rare and valuable collection contains, in the first volume, the Westmin-
ster Standards; in the second volume, the Confession of Faith of the English Congregation at Geneva,
the Scotch Confession of 1560, the Scotch Confession of 1580, the National Covenant of 1638, Calvin's
Catechism, the Heidelberg, and some other Catechisms and Books of Discipline. The first volume has
also a long Preface (153 pp.) on the Purpose and Use of Creeds.
SYLLOGE CONFESSIONTTM sub tempus fteformandce Ecclesice editarum. Oxon. 1804. Ed. altera et auc-
tior (under the revision of Bishop Lloyd). Oxon. 1827. No editor mentioned. This Collection (suggest-
ed by Bishop Cleaver) is very elegantly printed in the Clarendon Press, but has no critical valne, and
is incomplete. It contains: The Profession of the Tridentine Faith, the Second Helvetic Confession,
the Basle Confession (1532), the Altered Augsburg Confession of 1540 (to which, in the second edition
only, was added the Augustana of 1530), the Saxon Confession, the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg
Catechism, and the Canons of the Synod of Dort, all in Latin, and without a translation or introduction.
COBPUS LIBBOBUM SYMBOLiooRiTM qui in Ecclesia Meformatorum auctoritatem publicam obtinuerunt,
Ed. J. CHB. G. AUGUSTI. Elberfeldi, 1827, 8vo. Contains three Helvetic, the Gallic, the Anglican, the Scotch,
the Belgic, the Hungarian, Polish, and Bohemian Confessions, the Canons of Dort, the Consensus Eel-
veticus, and the Geneva and Heidelberg Catechisms, with an historical and literary dissertation.
DIE SYAIBOLISOHEN BUOHER DEB EVANGRLISCH-EEFOEMIETEN KIBOHE. Zum ersten Male aus dem Latein-
ischen vollst&ndig ubersetzt und mit histor. Einleitungen und Anmerkungen begleitet. . . . Fur Freunde
der Union und fur alle, die uber Entstehung, Inhalt und Zweck der Bekenntniss-Schriften sich zu belehren
wunschen. (By FEIEBRICH ADOLPH BECK.) 2 Theile. Neustadt a. d. Orla,1830; 2te wohlfeile Ansg. 1845.
A good edition, with brief introductions and notes. The Augsburg Confession and the Creed of Pius
IV. are appended to the Second Vol., pp. 350-410.
SAMMLTJNG SYMBOLISOHEB BUOHEB DEB EVANG.-BEFOtiMiBTEN KIBOHE fur Presbyterien, Schultehrer, Con-
firmanden, und alle welche eine Union auf dem Grunde der heilsamen Lehre und in der Einheit der alien
wahren Kirche Christi wunschen. Herausgeg. von J. J. MESS. 3 Theile. Neuwied, 1828, 1830, and 1846, 8vo.
H. A. NlEMEYEB : COLUEOTIO CoNFESSIONUM IN EOOLESHSREFOBM ATI8 pUbUcatdlrum,. LlpS.1840 (851 pagCS
large octavo, with 88 pages of Introductory Preface), and Collectionis Confessionum Appendix, qua con-
tinentur Puritanorum Libri SymbolicL Lipsiae, 1840 (pp. 113). This is the most complete Latin collection
of Reformed Symbols, and contains thirty-one in all, including the Zwinglian and early Swiss Confes-
sions. It is, however, poorly edited, without an index and table of contents. Niemeyer had completed
the large volume before he had seen a single copy of the Westminster Standards, and he published them
nine months afterwards in an Appendix.
DIB BKKENNTNISS-SOHBXFTEN DKB EVANOELTSOH-BEFOBMIBTEN KIECHE. Mit Einleitungen und Anmer-
kungen, herausgegeben von E. G. ADOLF BOOKEL (Oberhofprediger and General Superintendent in Olden-
burg). Leipzig, 1S47 (884 large octavo pages). The best German collection, containing thirty-two Re-
formed Symbols, including the Anglican Catechism and the Arminian Confessions, which Niemeyer
omits.
DIE BEKENNTNISS-BOHBIFTBN DEE BEFORMIETKN KIBOHEN DEUTSOIILANDS. Herausgegeben von Dr. HEXK-
BIOH HEPPE. Elberfeld, 1860 (310 pp.). Contains the Confession of Elector Frederick III. of the Pala-
tinate (1577), the Repetitio Anhaltina (1581), Anfrichtige Xtechenwhaft von Lehr und Cer&monien (1593),
Consensus Ministerii JBremensis Ecclesice (1595), the Confession of the General Synod held at Cassel (1608),
a Report on the Faith of the Reformed Churches in Germany (1607), the Confession of John Sigtimund
of Brandenburg (1614), another Confession of the same (1615), and the Emden Catechism (1554), all in
German.
J. RAWSON LUMBY (Cambridge) : The Confessions of the Sixteenth Century, with Special Reference to
the Articles of the Church of England (in preparation ; to be published in Cambridge and London, 1875).
^56 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
n. HISTORICAL AOT> DOCTBINAL WOEKS BEABING ON THE REFOBMED CONFESSIONS.
1. The doctrinal works of ZWINGLI, CALVIX, BEZA, (ECOLAMPADIUS, BDLLINGEB, UBSINUB, OLBVIANUS,
KJKOX, CBA.NHEE, RIDLEY, LATIMEB, HOOPEB, GBINDAL, JEWELL, HOOKEE, and other Reformers and stand-
ard divines of the sixteenth century.
2. Leben und ausgewahlte Schriften der Vdter und Begrunder der reformirten Kirche. Biographies of
Zwingli, Calvin, (Ecolampadius, and the other Reformers, by BAITM, CHEISTOFFEL, HAGENBAOH, HEPPE,
PEBTALOZZI, SCHMIDT, STAHELIN, SUDHOFF, etc. Elberfeld, 1857-1862. Ten Parts. One volume of this se-
ries—ChristofFel's Life ofZvringli~-is translated into English, but without the extracts from his writings.
3. Older Controversial Works of Reformed Divines:
J. HOOBNBEEK : Summa controversiarum religionis cum infidelibus, hcBretiais, schisniatieis. Utrecht, 1658.
1676, 1689 ; Franct a. 0. 169T, 8vo.
FB. TUBBETTN : Inst. theologies etenchticce. Geneva, 1682, 1688, 3 vols. 4to ; Utrecht, 1T01, 4 vols. 4to, etc.
B. PIOTET : De consensu et dissensu inter JReformatos et Augustance Confessionis fratres. Genev. 1700.
F. SPANHEIM: Controveraiarum de religione cum, dissidentHyus eLenchus hist, theol. Leyd. 1687; fifth
edition, Leyd. 1757, 4to.
Du GEEDES : Elenchits veritatum, circa qua& defendendas versatur theol. el&nchthfca. Groningen, 1740, 4to.
J. F. STAPFEE : Institiitiones theologicce polem,. Zurich, 1743-47, 5 vols. 8vo.
Dir WYTTENBACH : Theol. elenchticce initia. Francf. a. M. 1763, 1765, 2 vols. 8vo.
Comp. also the list of older dogmatic works of the Reformed Church in HEPPE'S Dogmatik der eoang.-
reform. Kirche, at the end of Preface, and in SOHWEIZEE'S Glaubenslehre der eoang.-reform. Eirche, Vol. I.
pp. xxL-xxiii.
4. Recent Historico-Dogmatic Works :
H. HEPPB (Marburg) : Dogmatik der evang.-reform. Kirche dargestellt und aus den Quelkn Megt, Elber-
feld, 1S61 ; and his Dogmatik des Deutschen Protestantiamv& im IQten Jahrh. Gotha, 1857, 3 vols.
ALEX. SOHWEIZEB (Zurich) : Die Protestantischen Centraldogmen in ihrer Entwicklung innerhafo der
Reformirten Kirche. Zurich, 1854-56, 2 vols. Also his Glaufanslehre der evang.-reform. Kirche dargestellt
und auR den Quellen telegt. Zurich, 1844-47, 2 vols.
AUG. EBEABD (Erlangen) : Das Dogma vom heiLAtendmahl und seine OescMchte (Frankfurt a. M. 1846),
the second voL - and also his Christliche Dogmatik. Konigsberg, 1S51, 1852, 2 vols.
CHABLES HODGE (Princeton) : Systematic Theology. New York, 1873, 3 vols.
J. J. VAN OOSTEBZEE (Utrecht) : Christian Dogmatics. Translated from the Dutch by Watson and Evam.
London and New York, 1874, 2 vols.
The Reformed Confessions are much more numerous than the Lu-
theran, because they represent a larger territory and several nationali-
ties— Swiss, German, French, Dutch, English, and Scotch — each of which
produced its own doctrinal and disciplinary standards, since the geo-
graphical and political divisions and the close relations to the civil gov-
ernment determined also the number of ecclesiastical organizations.
The productive period of the Reformed movement, moreover, extended
far into the seventeenth century, especially in England, and some of the
most important confessions, as the Canons of Dort and the Westmin-
ster Standards, were made long after the symbolic development of the
Lutheran Church had reached its culmination and rest in the Formula
of Concord. Finally the Reformed Church departs further from the
authority of ecclesiastical traditionalism than the Lutheran, and allows
more freedom for the development of various types of doctrine and
schools of theology within the limits of the Word of God, to which it
more rigidly adheres.
But with all this variety, the Reformed symbols are as much agreed
in the essential articles of faith as the Lutheran, and differ even less
§ 50. THE REFORMED CONFESSIONS. 357
than the Augsburg Confession, as explained by its author and his
school, differs from the Formula of Concord.1 They exhibit substan-
tially the same system of doctrine, and are only variations of one theme
according to the wants of the national Churches for which they were
intended. The Keformed Churches were never organically united un-
der one form of government, and even every little canton in Switzerland
(as every Lutheran principality in Germany) has its own ecclesiastical
establishment ;2 but they recognized each other as branches of the same
family, and kept up a lively intercommunion. Even the leading di-
vines and dignitaries of the Episcopal Church, of England, during the
sixteenth century, freely corresponded with the Reformed Churches
of Switzerland, France, and Holland, and the difference in church pol-
ity was no bar to church fellowship.
There are in all over thirty Reformed creeds. But many of them
had never more than local authority, or were superseded by later and
maturer forms. None of them has the same commanding position as
the Augsburg Confession in the Lutheran Church. Those which have
been most widely accepted and are still most in use are the Heidelberg
or Palatinate Catechism, the Thirty-nine Articles, and the Westminster
Confession. The second Helvetic Confession and the Canons of Dort
are equal to them in authority and theological importance, but less
adapted for popular use. All the rest have now little more than his-
torical significance.
As to origin and theological character, the Reformed Confessions
may be divided into Zwinglian and Calvinistic. The earlier were the
product of Zwingli and his Swiss coadjutors, the later date from Cal-
vin or his pupils and successors, and exhibit a more advanced and ma-
tured state of doctrine, with a difference, however, as to the extent to
which they are committed to the Calvinistic system ; some accepting it
in full, while others maintain a reserve in regard to its angular points
and rigorous logical consequences.
As to the country in which they originated and for which they were
1 This doctrinal consensus of the Reformed Creeds has been shown as early as 1581 in
the Harmonia Confessionum above quoted.
a In this respect the Churches of the United States, being free from government control,
are much better organized, according to creeds, without allowing the State boundaries to in-
terfere with their organic unitv-
358 THE CKEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
chiefly intended, we may divide them into Swiss, German, French,
Dntch, English, and Scotch Confessions.
To the Swiss family belong the Confessions which proceeded from
the Churches of Zurich, Basle, Berne, and Geneva, partly of Zwinglian
and partly of Calvinistic origin.
The German family embraces the Tetrapolitan Confession, the
Heidelberg Catechism, the Brandenburg and Anhalt Confessions, and a
few others. They are less pronounced in their Calvinism, and mediate
between it and the Lutheran Creed.
To France and the Netherlands belong the French and the Belgic
Confessions, the Canons of the Synod of Dort, and also the Arminian
Articles, which differ from the Calvinistic creeds in five points.
The English family embraces the Thirty-nine Articles, the old Scotch
Confessions, and the later Westminster Standards.
Besides, there are Bohemian, Polish, and Hungarian Confessions of
lesser importance.
NOTE. — We take the term Reformed here in its catholic and historical sense for all those
Churches which were founded by Zwingli and Calvin and their fellow-reformers in the six-
teenth century on the Continent, and in England and Scotland, and which agreed with the Lu-
theran Church in opposition to the Roman Catholic, but differed from it in the doctrine of
the real presence, afterward also in the doctrine of predestination. By their opponents they
were first called in derision Zwinglians and Calvinists, also Sacramentarians or Sacra-
mentschwarmer (by Luther and in the Formula of Concord), and in France Huguenots. But
they justly repudiated all such sectarian names, and used instead the designations Christian
or Evangelical or Reformed, or Evangelical Reformed or Reformed Catholic. The term Re-
formed assumed the ascendency in Switzerland, France, and elsewhere. Beza, e. g., uses it
constantly. Queen Elizabeth, in sundry letters to the Protestant courts of Germany in 1577,
speaks throughout ofecdesice refoimatce, and once calls the non-Lutheran Churches ecclesia
reformatiores, more Reformed, implying that the Lutheran is Reformed also.
The Lutherans, before the last quarter of the sixteenth century, called themselves likewise
Christian and Evangelical, sometimes Reformed, and since 1530 the Church or Churches of
the Augsburg Confession, or Verwandte der Augsburgischen Confession. For a long time they
disowned the terms Lutheranus, Luthericus, Lutheranismus, which were first used by Dr. Eck,
Cochlseus, Erasmus, and other Romanists with the view to stigmatize their religion as a re-
cent innovation and human invention. (A Papist once asked a Lutheran, ' Where was your
Church before Luther ?' The Lutheran answered by asking another question, * Where was
your face this morning before it was washed?*) Erasmus speaks of Lutherana trag&dia,
negotium Lutheranum, factio Lutherana. Hence the Lutheran symbols never use the term
Lutheran, except once, and then by way of complaint that the * dear, holy Gospel should be
called Lutheran.91 Luther himself complained of this use of his name; nevertheless he had
1 Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Art. XV. (VIII. p. 213 ed. Muller): lDas liebe,
heilige EvangeUum nennen sie [the Papists] Lutherisch.' The name of Luther, however, is
often honorably mentioned, especially in the Formula of Concord.
§ 50. THE REFORMED CONFESSIONS. 359
no objection that it should be duly honored in connection with the Word of God, and thought
that his followers need not be ashamed of him. l They thought so, too ; and, forgetting St. Paul's
warning against sectarian names, they gradually themselves appropriated the term Lutheran,
or Evangelical Lutheran, as the official title of their Church, since about 1585, under the influ-
ence of Jacob Andreas, the chief author of the Formula of Concord, and JEgidius Hunnius,
and in connection with the faith in Luther as a special messenger of God for the restoration
of Christianity in its doctrinal purity. See the proof in the little book of Dr. Hemrich Heppe,
Ursprung und Geschichte der Bezeichnungen t reforwirte' und * lutherische1 Kirche, Gotha,
1859, pp. 28, 35, 55.
The negative term Protestant was used after 1529 for both Confessions by friend and foe,
and is so used to this day ; but it must be explained from the historical occasion which gave
rise to it, and be connected with the positive faith in the Word of God, on the ground of
which the evangelical members of the Diet of Spires protested against the decision of the
papal majority, as an encroachment on the rights of conscience and an enforcement of the
traditions of men.
On the Continent of Europe it is still customary to divide orthodox Christendom into three
Confessions or Creeds — the Catholic (Greek and Roman), the Lutheran, and the Reformed —
and to embrace under the Reformed all other Protestant bodies, such as Methodists and
Baptists, or to speak of them as mere sects. But this will not do in England and America,
where these sects, so called, have become powerful Churches. Reformed is sometimes used
among us in a more general sense of all Protestant Churches, sometimes in a restricted sense
of a particular branch of the Reformed Church. The Continental terminology suits the
ecclesiastical statistics of the sixteenth century, but must be considerably enlarged and modi-
fied in view of the greater number of Anglo-American Churches. We shall devote a separate
chapter to those Protestant evangelical bodies which have taken their rise since the Refor-
mation.
1 l Wahr wfV he says (Works, Erl. ed. Vol. XXVIII. p. 316), 'dass du bei Leib und Seek
nicht sollst sagen : ich bin LUTHERISCH oder PAPSTISCH ; denn derselben ist keiner fur dick
gestorben, nock dein Meister, sondern allein Christus, und sollst dich (als) CHRISTEN bekennen.
Aber wenn du es dafur haltst, dass des Luthers Lehre evanyelisch und des Papstes unevan-
gelisch sei, so musst du den Luther nicht so gar hinwerfen. Du wirfst sonst seine Lehre auch
mil hin, die du doch fur Christi Lehre erkennest ; sondern also musst du sagen : der Luther
sei ein Bube oder heilig, da liegt mir nichts an; seine Lehre aber ist nicht sein, sondern Christi
selbst.1 And in another place (Vol. XL. p. 127) : lUnd wiewohl ich's nicht gern Kobe, dass
man die Lehre und Leute LUTHERISCH nenntt und muss von ihnen hiden, dass sie Gottes Wort
mit meinem Namen also schanden, so sollen sie doch den Luther, die Lutherischen Lehre und
Leute lassen b lei ben und zu JShren kommen.1
VOL. L— A A
360 THE CEEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
L SWISS REFOEMED CONFESSION
§51. ZWINGLJAN CONFESSIONS.
Literature.
H. ZWINSOI Opera ed. Gitalther (Zwingli's son-in-law), Tig. 1645 and 1681, 4 Tom. ; ed. M. Schuler UK
J. Schulth£88t Tig. 1828-42, 8 Tom. The last and only complete edition contains the German and Latin
works, with a supplemental volume of tracts and letters, published 1861. A judicious selection from his
writings, in German, for popular use, was edited by Chrtetoffel, Zurich, 1843-46, in fifteen small volumes,
also in the second part of his biography of Zwingli.
Biographies of Zwiiigli by MYOONIUS, NUSOHBLEB, HESS, ROTERMUND, SCHTJLEE, HOTTTNGEB, RODEK,
TICKLES, CHBISTOFFJBL (Elberfeld, 1857), and especially MSBIKOFEB: Ulrich Zwingli naeh den urkundlichen
Quellen, Leipzig, 1867-69, 2 vols. Hottinger and Christoffel are translated into English, but the latter
without the valuable extracts from Zwingli's writings. GUDER'S art. on Zwingli, in Herzog's MncykL
Vol. XVIII. pp. 701-766, is a condensed biography. ROBBINB, Life of Zwingli, in Bibliotheca Sacra, 1851.
Also A. EBEAED : Das Dogma vom heil Abendmahl und seine Geschiehte (Franct 1846), Vol. II. pp. 1-112
(an able vindication of Zwingli against misrepresentations). ED. ZBLLEB: Das theologische System Zwin-
0Zi*s,Tub. 1853. CH. SIGWART : Ulrich Zwingli, der Charakter seiner Theologie, mit besonderer Rucksicht avf
Pieus von Mrandula, Stuttg. 1855. H. SPSRKI : Zioinglistudien, Leipz. 1866. MERLE D'ATTJJIGNE : History
of the Reformation, 4th vol. (French, English, and German). HAGENBAOH : Genchiehte der Reform., 4th ed.
Leipz. 1870, pp. 183 sqq. G. P. FISHES : The Reformation, New York, 1873, pp. 137 sqq.
Zwingli (1484-1531) represents the first stage of the Reformed
Church, in Switzerland. He began what Calvin and others completed.
He died in the prime of life, a patriot and martyr, on the battle-field,
when his work seemed to be but half done. His importance is histor-
ical rather than doctrinal. He was the most clear-headed and liberal
among the reformers, but lacked the genius, depth, and vigor of Luther
and Calvin. He held opinions on the sacraments, original sin (as a dis-
order rather than a state of guilt), and on the salvation of all infants
(unbaptized as well as baptized) and the nobler heathen, which then
appeared radical, dangerous, and profane. He could conceive of a
broad and free Christian union, consistent with doctrinal differences
and denominational distinctions. He was a patriotic republican, frank,
honorable, incorruptible, cheerful, courteous, and affable. He took an
active part in all the public affairs of Switzerland, and labored to free
it from foreign influence, misgovernment and immorality. He began at
Einsiedeln (1516), and more effectively at Zurich (since 1519), to preach
Christ from the pure fountain of the New Testament, and to set him
forth as the only Mediator and all-sufficient Saviour. Then followed
his attacks upon the corruptions of Rome, and the Reformation was
introduced step by step in Zurich, where he exercised a controlling in-
fluence, and in the greater part of German Switzerland, until its prog-
ress was suddenly checked by the catastrophe at Cappel, 1531,
§ 51. ZWJNGLIAN CONFESSIONS. 361
Zwingli was scarcely two months younger than Luther, who sur-
vived him fifteen years. Both were educated and ordained in the
Roman Church, and became innocently and providentially reform-
ers of that Church. Both were men of strong mind, heroic char-
acter, fervent piety, and commanding influence over the people.
Both were good scholars, great divines, and fond of poetry and mu-
sic.1 Both labored independently for the same great cause of evan-
gelical Protestantism — the one on a smaller, the other on a larger
field. But their endowment, training, and conversion were different.
Zwingli had less prejudice, more practical common-sense, clear dis-
crimination, sober judgment, self-control, courtesy, and polish — Luther
more productive genius, poetic imagination, overpowering eloquence,
mystic depth, fire, and passion ; and was in every way a richer and
stronger, though rougher and wilder nature. Zwingli's eyes were
opened by the reading of the Greek Testament, which he carefully
copied with his own hand, and the humanistic learning of his friend
Erasmus ; while Luther passed through the ascetic struggles of monastic
life, till he found peace of conscience in the doctrine of justification
by faith alone. Zwingli broke more rapidly and more radically with
the Eoman Church than Luther. He boldly abolished all doctrines
and usages not taught in the Scriptures ; Luther piously retained what
was not clearly forbidden. He aimed at a reformation of government
and discipline as well as theology ; Luther confined himself to such
changes as were directly connected with doctrine. He was a Swiss
and a republican; Luther, a German and a monarchist. He was a
statesman as well as a theologian ; Luther kept aloof from all political
complications, and preached the doctrine of passive obedience to estab-
lished authority. They met but once in this world, and then as antag-
onists, at Marburg, two years before Zwingli's death. They could not
but respect each other personally, though Luther approached the Swiss
1 See Zwingli's poems, written during the pestilence, in Hagenbach, 1. c. p. 216, and another,
p. 404. He published a moral poem, under the title The Labyrinth, as early as 1510, while
priest at Glarus (Opera, Tom. II. B. pp. 243 sqq. ; Morikofer, Vol. I. pp. 13 sqq.). His
preference for Puritanic simplicity in public worship gave rise to the fiction of his hostility to
music. He was, on the contrary, singularly skilled in that art, and was called in derision by the
Papists * the evangelical lute-player. ' A contemporary says that he never knew a man who
could play on so many musical instruments — the lute, the harp, the violin, etc.
[Zwingli's copy of the N. T. was confined to Paul's epistles and Hebrews. — ED.]
362 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
with the strongest prejudice, looking upon him as a fanatic and semi-
infidel.1 They came to an agreement on every article of faith except
the real presence in the eucharist. Zwingli proposed, with tears, peace
and union, notwithstanding this difference, but Luther refused the hand
of Christian fellowship, because he made doctrinal agreement the
boundary-line of brotherhood.2
1 Once, at least, Luther speaks kindly of Zwingli, in a letter to Bullinger, of Zurich, May 1 4,
1538 (De Wette, Vol. V. p. 112): ^Libere enim dicam: Zwinglium, postquam Marpurgi mihi
visits et auditus est, virum optimum esse judicavi, sicut et (EcolampadiumS Jn the same
letter he says that Zwingli's death caused him much pain. But this personal respect did
not prevent him from using the most violent language against his doctrine of the Lord's
Supper, which he held in utter abhorrence to the last, and this all the more because his fanat-
ical colleague Carlstadt, who gave him infinite trouble, had first proposed and defended it by
an untenable exegesis. This accounts also for his absurd charge of fanaticism against the
clear, sober-minded, jejune Zwingli. 'J2s ist fast lachertich,' says the mild and impartial Ha-
genbach (p. 280), e wenn Luther mitten in seiner schwdnnerisch tobenden Leidenschaft den ehr-
Kcken Zwingti einen Schicarmer nennt, ihn, der von aller Schwarmerei so fern war. J5s sei
denn, dass man den idealistischen Zug in ihm (und der war allerdings dem derben Realismus
Luthers zuwider) mit diesem Namen bezeichnen wolle. Man betrachte auch nur sein Bildniss!
Dieser energische, feste, satte Kopf, diese in Stein gehauene, markante Physiognomic, diese
breite Stirn, dieses voile klare Auge, diesen geschlossenen Mund mit runden Lippen — genug I
ich uberlasse einem Lavater die vollendete Deutung des Bildes (der in ihm "Ernst, Nachden-
ken, mdnnliche Entschkssenheit, eine sich zusammenziehende Thatkraft, einen schauenden,
durchdringenden Verstand" erkennt\ und berufe mich allein auf die Geschichte, welche den
lebendigen Oommentar zu diesem Bildniss ausmacht.1
2 On the relation of Luther and Zwingli, see Ebrard, VoL II. pp. 214 sqq. ; Hagenbach,
pp. 278 sqq. ; and an essay of Hundeshagen in the Studien und Kritiken for 1862. Zwingli
himself thus described his relation to Luther in 1523, when the German Papists began to
denounce his doctrine as a Lutheran heresy : llch habe, ehe noch ein Mensch in unserer Ge-
gend etwas von Luther's Namen gewusst hat, angefangen das JEvangelium Chnsti zu predigen,
im Jahr 1516. Wer schalt mich damals luthevisch? . . . Luther's Name ist mir noch zwei
Jahre unbekannt gewesen, nachdem ich mich allein an die Bibel gehalten habe. Aber es ist,
wie gesagt, nur ihre Schlauheit, dass die Papstler mich undAndere mit solchem Namen beladen.
Sprechen sie : Du musst wohl lutherisch sein, du predigest ja, wie Luther schreibt ; so ist
meine Antwort: Ichpredigeja auch wie Paulus; warum nennst du mich nicht vielmehr einen
Paulisten f . . . Meines Erachtens ist Luther ein trefflicher Streiter Gottes, der da mit se
grossem ErnsU die Schrift durchforscht, als seit tausend Jahren irgend einer auf JErden ge-
wesen ist. Mit dem mannlichen, unbewegten Gemuthe, wot/tit er den Papst von Rom ange-
griffen hat, ist ihm keiner nie gleich geworden, so lange das Papstthum gewahret hat, alle
Andern ungeschohen. Wessen aber ist solche That? Gottes oder Luthers? Frage den
Luther selbst, gewiss sagt er dir : Gottes. Warum schreibst du denn anderer Menschen Lehre
dem Luther zu, da er sie selbst Gott zuschreibt, und nichts Neues hervorbringt, sondern was in
dem ewigen, unveranderlichen Worte Gottes enthalten ist f Fromme Christen ! gebet nicht zu,
dass der ehrliche Name Christi verwandelt werde in dm Namen Luthers; denn Luther ist
fur uns nicht gestorben, sondern er lehrt uns den erkennen, von dem wir allein allesHeil haben.
Predigt Luther Christum* so thut er's grade wie ich ; wiewohl, Gott sei Dank ! durch ihn eine
unzahlbare Menge mehr als durch mich und Andere, denen Gott ihr Muss grdsser oder kleiner
macht, zu Gott gefuhrt wird. Ich will keinen Namen tragen, als meines Hauptmannes Jesu
Christi, dessen Streiter ich bin. . . . JEs kann kein Mensch sein, der Luther hoher achtet, als
§ 51. ZWINGLI AN CONFESSIONS. 363
Zwingli wrote four dogmatic works of a semi-symbolic character,
which are closely interwoven with the history of the Reformation in
German Switzerland, and present a clear exhibition of the Reformed
faith in the first stage of its development. These are the Sixty-seven
Articles of Zurich (A.D. 1523), the Ten Theses of Berne (1528), the
Confession of Faith to the German Emperor Charles V. (1530), and the
Exposition of the Christian Faith to King Francis I. of France (1531).1
1. THE SIXTY-SEVEN ARTICLES, OR CONCLUSIONS^
They were prepared for apubl'c disputation held January 29, 1523,
in the city of Zurich, where Zwingli was chief pastor from 1519, and
were victoriously defended by him, in the presence of the civil magistrate
and about six hundred persons, against Dr. Faber, the General Vicar
of the Bishop of Constance, who appeared to superintend the meet-
ing rather than to defend the old doctrines, and was unwilling or un-
able to answer the arguments of a learned and powerful opponent. The
magistrate passed a resolution on the same day approving of Zwingli's
position, and requiring all the ministers of the canton to preach noth-
ing but what they could prove from the holy gospeL A second dis-
putation followed in October, on the use of images and the mass, be-
fore about nine hundred persons, including three hundred priests and
delegates from different cantons; a third disputation took place in
January, 1524. The result was the emancipation from popery, and
ich. JDennoch bezeuge ich vor Gott und alien Menschen, dass ich all' meine Tage nie einen
Buchstaben an ihn geschrieben habe, noch er an mich, nock verschafft^ dass geschrieben werde.
Ich habe es unterlassen, nicht dass ich jemand desswegen gefurchtet, sondern weil ich damit
alien Menschen habe zeigen wollen, wie gleichformig der Geist Gottes sei, da wir so weit von
einander entfernt und dock einmuthig sind, aber ohne alle Verabredung, wiewohl ick ihm nicht
zuzuzahlen bin ; dennjeder thut, sovielihm Gott weiset.'
1 They are all embodied in the Collections of Niemeyer and Bockel. Niemeyer (Collectio,
pp. 3-77) gives the first two in Swiss-German and in Latin, the last two in Latin only. Bockel
(JBekenntnisS'Schriften^ pp. 5-107) gives them in High-German, and adds the ' Brief Chris-
tian Instruction' which Zwingli wrote in the name of the Magistrate of Zurich, Sept. 1523,
for the preachers and pastors, treating of the Gospel and the Law, of Images, and of the Mass
(pp. 13-34).
2 AKTICULI SIVE CONCLUSIONES LXV1I. H. ZWINCJLII, A. 1523. They were published by
Zwingli himself before the disputation, with the title : ' The following 67 Articles and opin-
ions I, Ulrich Zwingli, confess to have preached in the honorable city of Zurich, on the
ground of the Scripture which is called theopneustos [i. e. inspired by God], and I offer to
defend them. And should I not correctly understand the said Scripture, I am ready to be
instructed and corrected, but only by the Scripture.' On the different editions, see the no*
tices of Niemeyer, Prafatio^ pp. xvi sqq.
364 THE CBEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
the orderly and permanent establishment of the Eeformed Church in
the city and canton of Zurich.
These Articles resemble the Ninety-five Theses of Luther, which
opened the drama of the Reformation in Germany, October 31, 1517,
but they mark a considerable advance in Protestant conviction. They
are full of Christ, as the only Saviour and Mediator, and clearly recog-
nize the Word of God as the only rule of faith. They attack the pri-
macy of the Pope, the mass, the invocation of saints, the meritorious-
ness of human works, fasts, pilgrimages, celibacy, and purgatory, as un-
scriptural traditions of men. They are short, and, in this respect, like
the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, better adapted for
a creed than the lengthy confessions of that age. But they never had
more than local authority. We give a few specimens :
1. AU who say that the gospel is nothing without the approbation of the Church, err and
cast reproach upon God.
2. The sum of the gospel is that our Lord Jesus Christ, the true Son of God, has made
known to us the will of his heavenly Father, and redeemed us by his innocence from eternal
death, and reconciled us to God.
3. Therefore Christ is the only way to salvation for all who were, who are, and who shall be.
4. Whosoever seeks or shows another door, errs — yea, is a murderer of souls and a robber.
7. Christ is the Head of all tfelievers.
8. All who live in this Head are his members and children of God. And this is the true
Catholic Church, the communion of saints.
15. Who believes the gospel shall be saved ; who believeth not shall be damned. For in
the gospel the whole truth is clearly contained.
16. From the gospel we learn that the doctrines and traditions of men are of no use to sal-
vation.
17. Christ is the one eternal high-priest.
18. Christ, who offered himself once on the cross, is the sufficient and perpetual sacrifice
for the sins of all believers. Therefore the mass is no sacrifice, but a commemoration of the
one sacrifice of the cross and a seal of the redemption through Christ.
19. Christ is the only Mediator between God and us.
22. Christ is our righteousness. From this it follows that our works are good so far as
they are Christ's, but not good so far as they are our own.
24. Christians are not bound to any works which Christ has not commanded.
26. Nothing is more displeasing to God than hypocrisy.
27. All Christians are brethren.
34. The power of the Pope and the Bishops has no foundation in the Holy Scriptures and
the doctrine of Christ.
49. I know of no greater scandal than the prohibition of lawful marriage to priests, while
they are permitted for money to have concubines. Shame ! (Pfui der Schande J)
50. God alone forgives sins, through Jesus Christ our Lord alone.
57. The Holy Scripture knows nothing of a purgatory after this life.
2. THE TEN THESES OF BEBNE.
After the Conference between the Reformed and the Roman di-
vines (headed by Dr. Eck), held at Baden, in Aargau, May, 1526,
which formed a turning-point in the history of the Swiss Reformation
(more decided than the similar disputation between Luther and Eck in
§ 51. ZWINGLIAN CONFESSIONS. 365
Leipzig, 1519), the Eeformation triumphed in Berne, the most conserva-
tive and aristocratic as well as most influential canton of the confeder-
acy. Three ministers, Berthold Haller, Francis Kolb, and Sebastian
Meyer, friends of Zwingli, and a gifted layman, Nicolas Manuel, who
was a statesman, poet, and painter, had previously prepared the way
under great opposition. The magistrate convened a convocation of
the clergy and laity, which continued nineteen days, from January 6 to
26, 1528, discussing ten theses which Zwingli had revised and published
at the request of Haller. Delegates appeared from other cantons (ex-
cept the Koman Catholic), and the South German cities of Constance,
Ulm, Lindau, and Strasburg. The Bishops of Constance, Basle, Lau-
sanne, and Sion were also invited, but declined to attend, except the
Bishop of Lausanne, who sent a few doctors. Dr. Eck, who had fig-
ured as the champion of Eomanism in Baden (as well as previously at
Leipzig), prudently disdained at this time to follow c the heretics into
their corners and dens.3 The principal champions of the Keforrned
cause were Zwingli (who also preached two very effective sermons on
the Apostles' Creed, and against the mass), CEcolampadius, Haller, Kolb,
Pellican, Megander, Bucer, and Capito. They carried a complete vic-
tory, and hereafter Berne, Zurich, and Basle — the three most enlight-
ened and influential German cantons — were closely linked together in
the Eeformed faith.1
The Bernese Theses are as follows :
1. The holy Christian Church, whose only Head is Christ, is born of the Word of God, and
abides in the same, and listens not to the voice of a stranger.
2. The Church of Christ makes no laws and commandments without the Word of God.
Hence human traditions are no more binding on us than they are founded in the Word of
God.
3. Christ is the only wisdom, righteousness, redemption, and satisfaction for the sins of the
whole world. Hence it is a denial of Christ when we confess another ground of salvation
and satisfaction.
4. The essential and corporeal presence of the body and blood of Christ can not be demon-
strated from the Holy Scripture.
5. The mass as now in use, in which Christ is offered to God the Father for the sins of the
1 See Samuel Fischer, Geschichte der Deputation zu Bern, Berne, 1828 ; Melch. Kirch-
hofer, Berthold Haller, oder die Reformation in Bern, Zurich, 1828 ; C. Festalozzi, B.
Haller, nach handschriftlichen und gleichzeitigen Quellen, Elberfeld, 1861, pp. 3f> sqq. (in
Vol. IX. of the Lives and Writings of the Fathers and Founders of the Reformed ChurcK) ;
Zwingli's Werke, ed. Schuler and Schulthess, Vol. II. I. pp. 630 sqq. Luther was not well
pleased with this triumph of Zwinglianism, and wrote to Gabriel Zwilling, March 7 (De
Wette, Vol. III. No. 959) : * Bernce in Helvetiis finita disputatio est; nihilfactum, nisi quod
missa abrogata et pueri in plateis content, se esse a Deo pisto liberates.' He also prophesied
an evil end to Zwingli.
THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
living and the dead, is contrary to the Scripture, a blasphemy against the most holy sacrifice,
passion, and death of Christ, and on account of its abuses an abomination before God.
6. As Christ alone died for us, so he is also to be adored as the only Mediator and Advo-
cate between God the Father and the believers. Therefore it is contrary to the Word of God
to propose and invoke other mediators.
7. Scripture knows nothing of a purgatory after this life. Hence all masses and other of-
fices for the dead are useless.
8. The worship of images is contrary to the Scripture. Therefore images should be abol-
ished when they are set up as objects of adoration.
9. Matrimony is not forbidden in the Scripture to any class of men, but permitted to all.
10. Since, according to the Scripture, an open fornicator must be excommunicated, it follows
that unchastity and impure celibacy are more pernicious to the clergy than to any other class. !
In his farewell sermon, Zwingli thus addressed the Bernese: 'Vic-
tory has declared for the truth, but perseverance alone can complete
the triumph. Christ persevered unto death. Ferendo vincitur for-
tuna. Behold these idols, behold them conquered, mute, and scattered
before us. The gold you have spent upon these foolish images must
henceforth be devoted to the comfort of the living images of God in
their poverty. In conclusion, stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ
has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage
(Gal. v. 1). Fear not ! the God who has enlightened you, will enlighten
also your confederates; and Switzerland, regenerated by the Holy
Ghost, shall flourish in righteousness and peace.'
3. THE CONFESSION OF FAITH TO EMPEROR CHARLES V.2
Zwingli took advantage of the meeting of the famous Diet at Augs-
burg, held A.D. 1530, to send a Confession of his faith addressed to the
German Emperor Charles V., shortly after the Lutheran Princes had
presented theirs (June 25). It is dated Zurich, July 3, and was deliver-
ed by his messenger at Augsburg on the 8th of the same month, but it
shared the same fate as the c Tetrapolitan Confession' of Bucer and Capito :
it was never laid before the Diet, and was treated with undeserved con-
tempt Dr. Eck wrote in three days a refutation,3 slanderously charging
Zwingli that for ten years he had labored to root out from the people of
1 The German copy adds : * Alles Gott und seinem heiligen Wort zu
3 Ad Carolum Rom. Imperatorem Germanics comitia Augustas, celebrantem fidei Huldrychi
Zwinglii ratio (Rechenschafi). Anno MDXX2C. Mense Julio. Vincat veritas (Zurich). In
the same year a German translation appeared in Zurich, and in 1543 an English translation.
See Niemeyer, p. xxvi. Comp. also Bockel, pp. 40 sqq. ; Morikofer, Vol. U, pp. 297 sqq. ;
and Christoffel, Vol. II. pp. 237 sqq.
3 Repulsio Articulorum Zwinglii. Zwingli replied in Ad Ulustrissimos Germanics principes
Augustcz congregatos, de convitiis Eckii (Qpera, Vol. IV. pp. 19 sqq.).
§ 51. ZWINGLIAN CONFESSIONS. 367
Switzerland all faith and all religion, and to stir them up against the
magistrate ; that he had caused greater devastation among them than
the Turks, Tartars, and Huns; that he had turned the churches and
convents founded by the Hapsburgers (the Emperor's ancestors) into
temples of Venus and Bacchus ; and that he now completed his crime
by daring to appear before the Emperor with such an impudent piece
of writing. The Lutherans (with the exception of Philip of Hesse, who
sympathized with Zwingli) were scarcely less indignant, and much more
anxious to conciliate the Catholics than to appear in league with Zwin-
glians and Anabaptists. They felt especially offended that the Swiss
Eeformer took strong ground against the corporeal presence, and inci-
dentally alluded to them as persons who ' were looking back to the flesh-
pots of Egypt.' * Melanchthon, who was at that time not yet eman-
cipated from the Catholic tradition on that article, judged him in-
sane.2
Zwingli, having had no time to consult with his confederates, offered
the Confession in his own name, and submitted it to the judgment of
the whole Church of Christ, under the guidance of the Word of God
and the Holy Spirit.
In the first sections he declares, as clearly and even more explicitly
than the Lutheran Confession, his faith in the orthodox doctrines of
the Trinity and the Person of Christ, as laid down in the Nieene and
Athanasian Creeds (which are expressly named). He teaches the elec-
tion by free grace, the sole and sufficient satisfaction of Christ, and jus-
tification by faith, in opposition to all human mediators and meritorious
works. He distinguishes between the internal or invisible, and the ex-
ternal or visible Church ; the former is the company of the elect believ-
ers and their children, and is the bride of Christ ; the latter embraces
all nominal Christians and their children, and is beautifully described
in the parable of the Ten Yirgins, of whom five were foolish. Church
may also designate a single congregation, as the church in Eome, in
Augsburg, in Leyden. The true Church can never err in the founda-
tion of faith. Purgatory he rejects as an injurious fiction which sets
1 'Quod Christi corpus, says Zwingli, ''per essentiam et realiter, hoc est corpus ipsum na-
twrale in coena aut adsit aut ore dentibusque nostris manducatur, quemadmodum Papistce, et
QUIDAM QTII AD OLLAS EoTPTiACAS KESPECTAXT, perhibent, id non tantum negamus, sed er-
rorem esse qui verbo Dei adversatur, constanter asseveramus.'
* See his letter to Luther of July 14, 1530, quoted on p. 263.
368 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Christ's merits at naught On original sin, the salvation of unbaptized
infants, and the sacraments, he departs much further from the tradi-
tional theology than the Lutherans. He goes into a lengthy argument
against the corporeal presence in the eucharist On the other hand,
however, he protests against being confounded with the Anabaptists,
and rejects their views on infant baptism, civil offices, the sleep of the
soul, and universal salvation.
The document is frank and bold, yet dignified and courteous, and
concludes thus: ' Hinder not, ye children of men, the spread and
growth of the Word of God — ye can not forbid the grass to grow. Ye
must see that this plant is richly blessed with rain from heaven. Con-
sider not your own wishes, but the demands of the age concerning the
free course of the gospel. Take these words kindly, and show by your
deeds that you are children of God.'
4. THE EXPOSITION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH TO KINO FRANCIS L1
This is, as Bullinger says, the swan song of Zwingli, in which he sur-
passed himself. He wrote it in July, 1531, three months before his
death, at the request of his friend Maigret, the French ambassador to
Switzerland, and sent it in manuscript to Francis I., King of France
(1515-1547), who, from political motives, showed himself favorable to
the Protestants in Germany and Switzerland, while he persecuted them
at home. A few years before he had dedicated to him his c Commen-
tary on the true and false Eeligion3 (1525), and a few years afterwards
(1536) Calvin dedicated to him his Institutes, with a most eloquent and
powerful letter ; but the frivolous monarch probably never read these
voices of warning, which, if properly heeded, might have changed the *
whole history of France.
This last document of Zwingli is clear, bold, spirited, full of faith
1 CHRISTIANA FiDEi ab H. ZwiNGLio predicates, brevis et clara EXPOSITIO ab ipso Zwin-
fflio paulo ante mortem ejus ad Regent Christianwn scrip ta. Under this title Bullinger edited
the work, with some omissions and changes, from the author's MS., with a preface, 1536.
He calls Zwingli Jidelissimus evangelii praco et Ch/istiance libertatis assertor constantis-
simus. Leo Judse prepared a free German translation : Eine kurze. Hare Summe und Er-
Tcl&rung des christl. Glaubens, etc., Zurich (no date). Kiemeyer took his text directly from
a copy of the manuscript made by Bibliander, in the library at Zurich (pp. xxviii. and 36 sqq.).
Christoffel (Vol. I. p. 368) states that the original MS. of Zwingli is still in the public library
of Paris. A High-German translation in Bockel, pp. 63 sqq., and Christoffel, Vol. II. pp,
.262 sqq.
$52. ZWINGLI'rf DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES. 369
and hope. In a brief preface he warns the most Christian King of
France against the lies and slanders circulated against the Protestants*
He first treats of God, the ultimate ground of our faith and only object
of worship. We do not despise the saints and sacraments, we only
guard them against abuse; we honor Mary as the perpetual Virgin
and Mother of God,1 but we do not worship her in the proper sense of
the term, which we know she herself would never tolerate. The sac-
raments we honor as signs or symbols of holy things, but not as the
holy things themselves. Then he speaks of the holy Trinity, and the
incarnation of the eternal Son of God for our salvation, who made a
full satisfaction for all our sins. He gives an able exposition of the
two natures in the one person of Christ, his death, resurrection, ascen-
sion, and return to judgment. He rejects purgatory as a papal fiction.
He dwells very fully on the doctrine of the Sacraments, especially the
eucharistic presence (rejecting ubiquity). The remaining chapters are
devoted to the Church, the Magistrate, the remission of sins, faith and
works, eternal life, and an attack on the Anabaptists, with whom the Prot-
estants were often confounded in France. In conclusion, he entreats
the king to give the gospel free course in his kingdom ; to imitate the
example of some pious princes in Germany ; to judge by the fruits of
the Eeformed faith wherever it was fairly established ; and to forgive
the boldness with which he approached his majesty. The urgency of
the case demanded it. An appendix is devoted to the mass, with proofs
from the fathers, especially from Augustine, in favor of his view on the
Lord's Supper.
§ 52. ZwiNGLfs DlSTINCTTVE DoOTEINBS.
Zwlngli's doctrines are laid down chiefly in his two Confessions to Charles T. and Francis I. (§ 51),
his Commentarius de vera et falsa religione (1525), and his sermon Le Providentia Dei (1530).
Of secondary doctrinal importance are the Explanation of his Articles and, Conclusions (1523); his
Shepherd (a sort of pastoral theology) ; several tracts and letters on the Lord's Supper, on Baptism and
re-Baptism; and his Commentaries on Genesis, Exodus, the Gospels, the Romans, and CorintMms
(edited, from his lectures and sermons, by Leo Juda, Megander, and others).
Zwingli's theological system contains, in germ, the main features of
the Reformed Creed, as distinct from the Lutheran, and must be here
briefly considered.
1. Zwingli begins with the objective (or formal) principle of Protest-
1 Zwingli retained this term, but with * restriction to the human nature united to the
Logos.
370 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
autism, namely, the exclusive and absolute authority of the Bible in all
matters of Christian faith and practice. The Keformed Confessions
do the same ; while the Lutheran Confessions start with the subjective
(or material) principle of justification by faith alone, and make this
' the article of the standing and falling Church.5 This difference, how-
ever, is more a matter of logical order and relative importance. Word
and faith are inseparable, and proceed from the same Holy Spirit.
In both denominations a living faith in Christ is the first and last
principle. Without this faith the Bible may be esteemed as the best
book, but not as the inspired word of God and rule of faith.
2. Zwingli teaches the doctrine of unconditional election or predes-
tination to salvation (constitutio de beandis, as he defines it), and finds
in it the ultimate ground of our justification and salvation ; faith be-
ing only the organ of appropriation. God is the infinite being of be-
ings, in whom and through whom all other beings exist; the supreme
cause, including as dependent organs the finite or middle causes ; the
infinite and only good (Luke xviii. 18), and every thing else is good
(Gen. L 31) only through and in him. It is a fundamental canon that
God by his providence, or perpetual and unchangeable rule and admin-
istration,1 controls and disposes all extents, the will and the action ; oth-
erwise he would not be omnipotent and omnipresent There can be
no accident. The fall, with its consequences, likewise comes under his
foreknowledge and fore-ordination, which can be as little separated as
intellect and will. But God's agency in respect to sin is free from sin,
since he is not bound by law, and has no bad motive or affection ; so
the magistrate may take a man's life without committing murder.2
But only those who hear the Gospel and reject it in unbelief are fore-
ordained to eternal punishment. Of those without the reach of Chris-
tian doctrine we can not judge, as we know not their relation to elec-
tion. There may be and are elect persons among the heathen ; and the
fate of Socrates and Seneca is no doubt better than that of many popes.
Zwingli, however, dwells mainly on the positive aspect of God's
1 Zwingli defines providentia to be perpetuum et immutabile rerum univ&rsarum regnum et
administration
a This illustration is used by Myconius in defending the Zwinglian view of Providence.
See Schweizer, Centraldogmen, Vol. I. p. 133. The illustration of Zwingli, Opp. IV. p. 112,
concerning the adulterium Davidis and tlie taurus, is less happy.
§ 52. ZWTNGLTS DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES. 371
providence — the election to salvation. Election is free and independ-
ent. It embraces also infants before they have any faith. It does
not follow faith, but precedes it. Faith is itself the work of free grace
and the sign and fruit of election (Rom. viii. 29, 30 ; Acts xiii. 48). We
are elected in order that we may believe in Christ and bring forth the
fruits of holiness. Faith is trust and confidence in Christ, the union of
the soul with him, and full of good works. Hence it is preposterous to
charge this doctrine with dangerous tendency to carnal security and
immorality.1
This is substantially Zwingli's doctrine, as he preached it during the
Conference in Marburg (1529), and taught it in his book on Providence.2
1 As a matter of history, it is an undeniable fact that the strongest predestinarians (wheth-
er Augustinians or Calvinists or Puritans) have been the most earnest, energetic, and per-
severing Christians. Edward Zeller (a cool philosopher and critic of the Tubingen school)
clearly explains this connection in his book on the Theological System ofZwingli, pp. 17-19 :
'Gerade die Lehre von der Erwdhlung , der man so oft vorgeworfen hat, dass sie die sittliche
Kraft Idhme, dass sie zu Trdgheit und Sorglosigheit hinfiihre, gerade diese Lehre ist es, aus
wekher derReformirtejene rucksichts- und zweifellose, bis zur Hdrte und Leidenschaftlichkeit
durchgreifende praktische Energie schdpft, wie wlr sie an den Helden dieses Glaubens, einem
Zwingli, einem Calvin, einem Farel, einem Knox, einem Cromwell, bewundern, welche ihn vor
den Zweifeln und Anfechtungen bewahrt, die dem weicheren, tiefer mit sick selbst beschaft-
igten Gemiith so viel zu schajfen machen^ von denen selbst der grosse deutscke Glaubensheld
Luther nock in spdten Jahren heimgesucht wurde. Die wesentliche religiose Bedeutung dieser
Lehre, ihre Bedeutung fur das innere Leben der Gldubigen, liegt nicht in der Ueberzeuzung
von der Unbedingtheit des gdttlichen Wirkens als solchen, sondern in dem Glauben an seine
Unbedingtheit IN SEINER RICHTUNG AUP DIESES BESTIMMTE SUBJEKT, in jener PERSON-
LICHEN GEWISSHBIT der Erwdhlung^ welche den UnterscUed der reformirten Erwdhlungs-
lehre von der augustinischen ausmacht, und eben darauf beruht es auch, dass die theoretisch
ganz richtigen Konsequenzen des Prddestinatianismus in Beziehung aufdie Nutzlosigkeit und
Gleichgultigkeit des eigenen Thuns den Reformirten nicht bios nicht stSren, sondern gar nicht
fur ihn vorhanden sind. Was er in den Sdtzen von der ewigen Vorherbestimmung alter JDingre,
von dem unwandelbaren Rathschluss der Erwdhlung undderVerwerfung, fur sich selbst findet,
das ist nur die unzweifelhafte Gewissheit, persdnlich zum Dienst Gottes berufen zu sein, und
vermBge dieser Berufung in alien seinen Angelegenheiten unter dem unmittelbarsten Schutz
Gottes zu stehen, als Werkzeug Gottes zu handeln, der Seligkeit gewiss zu sein. Die Heils-
gewissheit ist hier von der sittlich religiosen Anforderung nicht getrennt^ der Einzelne hat das
Bewusstsein seiner Berufung nur in seinem Glauben, und den Glauben nur in der Kraftigkeit
teines gottbeseelten Willens, er ist sich nicht seiner Erwdhlung zur Seligkeit ohne alle weitere
Bestimmung, sondern wesentlich nur seiner Erwdhlung zu der Seligkeit des christlichen Le-
bens bewusst; die Erwdhlung ist hier nur die Unterlagefur das praktische Verhalten des From-
men, der Mensch verzichtet nur desshalb im Dogma auf die Kraft und Freiheit seines Willens^
um sie fur das wirkliche Leben und Handeln von der Gottheit, an die er sich ihrer entdus-
sert hat, als eine absolute, als die Kraft des gdttlichen Geistes^ als die unerschutterliche Selbst-
gewissheit des Erwdhlten zuruckzuerhalten.'
* Zwingli, being requested by Philip of Hesse (Jan. 25, 1530) to send him a copy of his
sermon, which he had preached without manuscript, reproduced the substance of it, and sent
it to hima Au#. 20, 1530. under the title, Ad ittustrissimum Cattorum principem Philippum
372 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
It was afterwards more fully and clearly developed by the powerful
intellect of Calvin,1 who made it the prominent pillar of his theology
and impressed it upon the majority of the Reformed Confessions, al-
though several of them simply teach a free election to salvation, with-
out saying a word of the decree of reprobation.
On this subject, however, as previously stated, there was no contro-
versy among the early Eef ormers. They were all Augustinians. Luther
heard Zwingli's sermon on Providence in Marburg, and made no objec-
tion to it, except that he quoted Greek and Hebrew in the pulpit. He
had expressed himself much more strongly on the subject in his famous
book against Erasmus (1525). There was, however, this difference, that
Luther, like Augustine, from his denial of the freedom of the human
will, was driven to the doctrine of absolute predestination, as a logical
consequence; while Zwingli, and still more Calvin, started from the
absolute sovereignty of God, and inferred from it the dependence of
the human will ; yet all of them were controlled by their strong sense
of sin and free grace much more than by speculative principles. The
Lutheran Church afterwards dropped the theological inference in part — -
namely, the decree of reprobation — and taught instead the universality
of the offer of saving grace ; but she retained the anthropological pre-
mise of total depravity and inability, and also the doctrine of a free
election of the saints, or predestination to salvation ; and this after all
is the chief point in the Calvinistic system, and the only one which is
made the subject of popular instruction. In the Lutheran Church,
morever, the election theory is moderated by the sacramental princi-
ple of baptismal regeneration (as was the case with Augustine), while
in the Reformed Church the doctrine of election controls and modifies
the sacramental principle, so that the efficacy of baptism is made to
depend upon the preceding election.
3. The most original and prominent doctrine of Zwingli is that of the
sacraments, and especially of the Lord's Supper.
He adopts the general definition that the sacrament is the visible
sign of an invisible grace, but draws a sharp distinction between the
sermonis de Providentia Dei anamnema. Opera IV. pp. 79-144. See a full extract in
Schweizer's Centraldogmen,V<A. I. pp. 102 sqq. Ebrard makes too little account of this tract.
1 In the later editions of his Institutes ; for in the first edition he confines himself to a very
brief and indefinite statement of this doctrine.
§ 52. ZWINGLI'S DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES. 373
sacramental sign (signum) and the thing signified (res sacrament^,
and allows no necessary and internal connection between them. The
baptism by water may take place without the baptism of the Spirit (as
in the case of Ananias and Simon Magus), and the baptism by the
Spirit, or regeneration, without the baptism by water (for the apostles
received only John's baptism ; the penitent thief was not baptized at
all, and Cornelius was baptized after regeneration). Communion with
Christ is not confined to the Lord's Supper, neither do all who partake
of this ordinance really commune with Christ. The Spirit of God is
free and independent of all outward ceremonies and observances.
As to the effect of the sacraments, Zwingli rejecia the whole scholas-
tic theory of the opus op&ratum, and makes faith the necessary medium
of sacramental efficacy. He differs here not only from the Komish, but
also from the Lutheran theory. He regards the sacraments only as
signs and seals, and not strictly as means or instrumentalities of grace,
except in so far as they strengthen it. They do not originate and
confer grace, but presuppose it, and set it forth to our senses, and
confirm it to our faith. As circumcision sealed the righteousness
of the faith of Abraham, which he had before in a state of uncir-
cumcision (Horn. iv. 11), so baptism seals the remission of sin by the
cleansing blood of Christ, and our incorporation in Christ by faith,
which is produced by the Holy Spirit. In infant baptism (which he
strongly defended against the Anabaptists, not indeed as necessary to
salvation, but as proper and expedient), we have the divine promise
which extends to the offspring, and the profession of the faitli of the
parents with their pledge to bring up their children in the same.
The Lord's Supper signifies and seals the fact that Christ died for
us and shed his blood for our sins, that he is ours and we are his, and
that we are partakers of all his benefits. Zwingli compares the sacrar
ment also to a wedding-ring which seals the marriage union.
He fully admits, however, that the 'sacraments are divinely insti-
tuted and necessary for our twofold constitution ; that they are sig-
nificant and efficacious, not empty, signs ; that they aid and strengthen
our faith ('auxilium opemque adferunt fidei"*}, and so far confer spir-
itual blessing through the medium of appropriating faith. In this wider
sense they may be called means of grace. He also gives them the
character of public testimonies, by which we openly profess our faith
374 THE CREEDS OF CHBISTENDOM.
before God and the world, pledge onr obedience to him, and express
our gratitude for mercies received. Hence the name eucharist, or
gratiarum actio.
Concerning the Lord?s Supper, Zwingli teaches, in opposition to the
Roinish mass, that it is a commemoration^ not a repetition, of the aton-
ing sacrifice of Christ, who offered himself once for all time, and can
not be offered by any other ; that bread and wine signify or represent,
but are not really, the broken body and shed blood of our Lord ; that
he is present only according to his divine nature and by his Spirit to
the eye of faith (fidei contemplatione], but not according to his human
nature, which is in heaven at the right hand of Q-od, and can not be
present every where or in many places at the same time ; that to eat his
flesh and to drink his blood is a spiritual mandu cation, or the same as to
believe in him (John vL), and no physical manducation by mouth and
teeth, which, even if it were possible, would be useless and unworthy^
and would establish two ways of salvation — one by faith, the other by
literal eating in the sacrament ; finally, that the blessing of the ordi-
nance consists in a renewed application of the benefits of the atone-
ment by the worthy or believing communicants, while the unworthy
receive only the outward signs to their own judgment.
He therefore rejects every form of a local or corporeal presence,
whether by transubstantiation, impanation, or consubstantiation, as con-
trary to the Bible, to the nature of faith, and to sound reason. He
supports the figurative interpretation of the words of institution1 by a
large number of passages, where Christ is said to 2>e the door, the
lamb, the rock, the vine, etc. ; also by such passages as Gen. xli. 26, 2?
(the seven good kine wre seven years), Matt xiii. 31-37 (the field is the
world ; the tares are the children of the wicked one ; the reapers are
the angels), and especially Luke xxii. 20 ; 1 Cor. xi. 25 (the cup is the
New Testament in my blood). He proves the local absence of Christ's
body by the fact of his ascension to heaven, his future visible return to
1 That is, of the verbal copula lori, est~sigmficat, not of rorro (Carlstadt), nor <rwjJLa=Jigura
corporis (CEcolampadius, on the ground that Christ probably did not use the verb at all in tbe
original Aramaic). Zwingli was always inclined to a tropical interpretation, and averse to
the notion of a carnal presence, but was led to his exegesis in 1622 by a tract of Honius
(Hoen), a lawyer of Holland, De eucharistia^ which taught him in qua voce tropus lateret.
See Ebrard, Vol. II. p. 97. His controversy with Luther began when he wrote a letter to
Matth. Alber, at Reutlingen, Nov. 16, 1524.
§ 52. ZWINGLI'S DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES. 375
judgment, and by such passages as, * I go to prepare a place for you ;'
'The poor you have always with you, but me you have not always;3 '1
go to my Father ;' < The heaven must receive him until the times of
restitution of all things.' He also points out the inconsistency of Luther
in maintaining the literal presence of Christ in the sacrament, and yet
refusing the adoration ; for wherever Christ is he must be adored.
I add his last words on the subject from the Confession sent to King
Francis I. shortly before his death : e We believe that Christ is truly
present in the Lord's Supper; yea, we believe that there is no com-
munion without the presence of Christ.1 This is the proof : " Where
two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst
of them" (Matt, xviii. 20). How much more is he present where the
whole congregation is assembled to his honor ! But that his body is liter-
ally eaten is far from the truth and the nature of faith. It is contrary to
the truth, because he himself says : " I am no more in the world" (John
xvii. 11), and " The flesh profiteth nothing" (John vi. 63), that is to eat,
as the Jews then believed and the Papists still believe. It is contrary
to the nature of faith (I mean the holy and true faith), because faith
embraces love, fear of God, and reverence, which abhor such carnal
and gross eating, as much as any one would shrink from eating his be-
loved son. . . . We believe that the true body of Christ is eaten in the
communion in a sacramental and spiritual manner by the religious, be-
lieving, and pious heart (as also St. Chrysostom taught). And this is in
brief the substance of what we maintain in this controversy, and what
not we, but the truth itself teaches.' To this he adds the communion
service, which he introduced in Zurich, that his Majesty may see how
devoutly the sacrament is celebrated there in accordance with the in-
stitution of Christ. This service is much more liturgical than the later
Calvinistic formulas, and includes the ' Gloria in Excelsis,' the Apos-
tles' Creed, and responses.
Closely connected with the eucharistic controversy are certain christo-
logical differences concerning ubiquity and the comrminicatio idiomor-
tum, which we have already discussed in the section on the Formula of
Concord.
Zwingli's doctrine of the Eucharist is unquestionably the simplest,
1 'Christum credimus vere esse in ccena, immo non credimus esse Domini ccenam nisi Chri-
utus adsitS Niemejer, p. 71.
VOL. I.— B B
376 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
clearest, and most intelligible theory. It removes the supernatural
mystery from the ordinance, and presents no obstacles to the nnder-
standing. Exegetically, it is admissible, and advocated even by some
of the ablest Lutheran scholars, who freely concede that the literal in-
terpretation of the words of institution, to which Luther appealed first
and last against the arguments of Zwingli, is impossible, or, if consist-
ently carried out, must lead to the Eomish dogma.1 Philosophically
and dogmatically, it labors under none of the difficulties of transub-
stantiation and consubstantiation, both of which imply the simultaneous
multi presence of a corporeal substance, and a physical manducation of
Christ's crucified body and blood — in direct contradiction to the essen-
tial properties of a body, and the testimony of four of our senses. It
has been adopted by the Arminians, and it extensively prevails at pres-
ent even among orthodox Protestants of all denominations, especially
in England and America.2
Zwingli is no doubt right in his protest against every form, however
refined and subtle, of the old Capernaitic conception of a carnal pres-
ence and carnal appropriation (John vi. 63). He is also right in his
positive assertion that the holy communion is a commemoration of the
all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and a spiritual feeding on
Christ by faith. But he falls short of the whole truth ; he does not do
justice to the strong language of our Lord, especially in John vi. 53-58,
concerning the eating of the flesh of the Son of Man (whether this
be referred directly or indirectly to the Lord's Supper, or not). After
all deduction of carnal misconceptions, there remains the mystery of a
vital union of the believer with the whole Christ, including his human-
ity, viewed not, indeed, as material substance, but as a principle of life
and power.
This Calvin felt. Hence he endeavored to find a via 'media between
Zwingli and Luther, and assumed, besides the admitted real presence
1 See above, p. 327.
8 Dr. Hodge, e. g., does not rise above the Zwinglian view. He denies that Christ is pres-
ent in any other way than spiritually, and that believers receive any other benefit than * the
sacrificial virtue and effects of the death of Christ on the cross,' which he maintains was re-
ceived already by the saints of the Old Testament and the disciples at the first Supper, before
the glorified body of Christ had any existence. * The efficacy of this sacrament, as a means
of grace, is not in the signs, nor in the service, nor in the minister, nor in the word, but in the
attending influence of the Holy Spirit.'— System. Theol. Vol. III. pp. 646, 647, 650.
§ 52. ZWIXGLI'S DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES. 377
of the Divine Lord, a dynamic presence and influence of his glorified
and ever-living humanity, and an actual communication of its life-
giving power (not the matter of the body and blood) by the Holy Ghost
to the worthy communicant through the medium of faith — as the
sun is in the heavens, and yet with his light and heat present on earth.
This theory passed substantially into the most authoritative confessions
of the sixteenth century, arid must therefore be regarded as the ortho-
dox doctrine of the Reformed Church.
On three other points — namely, original sin, the salvation of infants,
and the salvation of the heathen — Zwingli had peculiar views, which
were in advance of his age, and gave great offense to some of his
friends as well as to Luther, but were afterwards adopted by the Ar-
rninians.
4. The Reformation was bom of an intense conviction of the sinful-
ness of man and the absolute need of a radical regeneration. Zwingli
makes no exception, and describes the corruption and slavery of the
natural man almost as strongly as Luther, although he never passed
through such terrors of conscience as the monk in Erfurt, nor had he
such hand-to-hand fights with the devil.1 He derives sin from the fall
of Adam, brought about by the instigation of the devil, and finds its es-
sence in selfishness as opposed to the love of God. He goes beyond
the Augustinian infralapsarianism, which seems to condition the eter-
nal counsel of God by the first self-determination of man, and he boldly
takes the supralapsarian position that God not only foresaw, but foreor-
dained the fall, together with the redemption, that is, as a means to an
end, or as the negative condition for the revelation of the plan of sal-
vation. He fully admits the distinction between original or hereditary
sin and actual transgression, but he describes the former as a moral
disease, or natural defect, rather than punishable sin and guilt.2 It is
a miserable condition (conditio misera). He compares it to the mis-
1 Dorner (in his History of German Theology, p. 287) says that Zwingli retained from his
humanistic culture a certain disposition to ' an aesthetic consideration of sin,* i. e., to see in it
something disgraceful, unworthy, bestial rather than diabolical.
2 Defectus naturalis, or, as he often calls it in his Swiss-German, a Brest, i. e. Gelrechen.
'DieErbsundJ he says in his book on Baptism,* ist nuts (nichts) anders weder (als) der Brest
von Adam her. . . . Wir verstond (verstehen) durch das Wort Brest einen Mangel, den einer
ohn sin Schuld von der Gebwrt her hat oder sust (sonst) von Zuf alien.1 He distinguishes it
from Laster and Frevel, vice and crime. He explains his view more fully in his tract De
peccato original* ad Urbanum Regium, 1526, and also in his Confession to Charles V., 1530.
378 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
fortune of one born in slavery.1 But if not sin in the proper sense of
the term, it is an inclination or propensity to sin (propensio ad pec-
candum), and the fruitful germ of sin, which will surely develop itself
in actual transgression. Thus the young wolf is a rapacious animal
before he actually tears the sheep.
5. Zwingli was the first to emancipate the salvation of children dy-
ing in infancy from the supposed indispensable condition of water-
baptism, and to extend it beyond the boundaries of the visible Church.
This is a matter of very great interest, since the unbaptized children
far outnumber the baptized, and constitute nearly one half of the race.
He teaches repeatedly that all elect children are saved whether bap-
tized or not, whether of Christian or heathen parentage, not on the
ground of their innocence (which would be Pelagian), but on the
ground of Christ's atonement. He is inclined to the belief that all
children dying in infancy belong to the elect; their early death being
a token of God?s mercy, and hence of their election. A part of the
elect are led to salvation by a holy life, another part by an early death.
The children of Christian parents belong to the Church, and it would
be 'impious' to condemn them. But from the parallel between the
first and the second Adam, he infers that all children are saved from
the ruin of sin, else what Paul says would not be true, that < as in
Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive' (1 Cor. xv. 22).
At all events, it is wrong to condemn the children of the heathen, both
on account of the restoration of Christ and of the eternal election of
God, which precedes faith, and produces faith in due time ; hence the
absence of faith in children is no ground for their condemnation.2 As
1 'Peccatum originale mm proprie peccatum est, non enim estf acinus contra hgem. Mbr-
bus igitur est proprie et conditio? Fidei Ratio ad Carol. V. Cap. IV. (Niemeyer, p. 20).
2 Fidei Ratio, Cap.V. (Niemeyer, p. 21): * Sine constat, si in Christo secundo Adam vita
restituiitiur, quemadmodum in primo Adam sumus morti traditi, quod temere damnamus Chri-
stianis parentibus natos pueros, imo GENTIUM quoque pueros. Adam enim siperderere univer-
sum genus peccando potuit, et Christus moriendo non vivificavit et redemit universum genus a
cladeper istum data, jam non est par salus redditaper Christum^ et perinde (quod absitf) nee
verum, ''Sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur, ita in Christo omnes vitce restituuntur." Verum quo-
modocunque de gentilium infantibus statuendum sit, hoc certe adseveramus, propter virtutem
salutis per Christum prcestitce, pr ester rem pronunciare qui eos ceternos maledictioni addicunt,
cum propter dictam reparatioms causam, turn propter electionem Dei liberam, quce non sequitur
fidem, sed fides electionem sequitur.* In another passage against the Catabaptists he says :
'JElecti eligebantur antequam in utero condperentur : mox igitur ut sunt^filii Dei sunt^ etiamsi
moriantur antequam credant aut adfidem vocentur. Camp. Zeller, 1. c. p. 162.
§ 52. ZWINGLI'S DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES. 379
he believed in the salvation of many adult heathen, he had the less
difficulty in believing that heathen children are saved ; for they hare
not yet committed actual transgression, and of hereditary sin they have
been redeemed by Christ We have therefore much greater certainty
of the salvation of departed infants than of any adults.
This view was a bold step beyond the traditional orthodoxy. The
Eoman Catholic Church, in keeping with her doctrine of original sin
and guilt, and the necessity of water-baptism for salvation (based upon
Mark xvi. 16 and John iii. 5), teaches the salvation of all baptized, and
the condemnation of all unbaptized children ; assigning the latter to
the limbus infantwn on the border of hell, where they suffer the mild-
est kind of punishment, namely, the negative penalty of loss (pc&na
damni or carentia beatificce msionis\ but not the positive pain of feel-
ing (pcena sensus).1 St. Augustine first clearly introduced this whole-
sale exclusion of all unbaptized infants from heaven — though Christ
expressly says that to children emphatically belongs the kingdom of
heaven. He ought consistently to have made the salvation of infants,
like that of adults, depend upon their election ; but the churchly and
sacramental principle checked and moderated his predestination theory,
and his Christian heart induced him to soften the frightful dogma as
much as possible.2 As he did not extend election beyond the bound-
aries of the Catholic Church (although he could not help seeing the
significance of siich holy outsiders as Melchizedek and Job under the
old dispensation), he secured at least, by his high view of the regener-
ative efficacy of water-baptism, the salvation of all baptized infants
dying in infancy. To harmonize this view with his system, he must
have counted them all among the elect.
The Lutheran Creed retains substantially the Catholic view of bap-
1 The Umbus infantum is, so to speak, the nursery of hell, on the top floor and away from
the fire, as Bellarmin says, in loco inferni altiori, ita ut ad eum ignis non perveniat. In a
still higher region was the limbus patrum, the temporary abode of the saints of the Old Testa-
ment, but this was vacated at the descent of Christ into Hades, when those saints were
freed from prison and translated into Paradise.
2 'Parvulos non baptizatos in damnatione omnium lenissima futures' (Contra JuL lib.V.
c. 11); 'Infantes non baptizati LENISSIME quidem, sed tamen damnantur. Potest proinde
recte did, parvulos sine baptismo de corpora exeuntes in damnatione otmium MITISSIMA futu-
ro$* (Depecc. mer. et rem. cap. 16). Pelagius was more liberal, and assumed a middle state
of half-blessedness for unbaptized infants between the heaven of the baptized and the hell of
the ungodly. See particulars in my Church History, Vol. III. pp. 835 sqq.
380 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
tismal regeneration, and hence limits infant salvation to those who en-
joy this means of grace;1 allowing, however, some exceptions within
the sphere of the Christian Church, and making the damnation of un-
baptized infants as mild as the case will permit.2 At present, however,
there is scarcely a Lutheran divine of weight who would be willing to
confine salvation to baptized infants.
The Reformed Church teaches the salvation of all elect infants dying
in infancy, whether baptized or not, and assumes that they are regen-
erated before their death, which, according to Calvinistic principles, is
possible without water-baptism.3 The second Scotch Confession, of
1580, expressly rejects, among other errors of popery, c the cruel judg-
ment against infants departing without the sacrament.'4 Beyond this
the Confessions do not go, and leave the mysterious subject to private
opinion. Some of the older and more rigid Calvinistic divines of the
supralapsarian type carried the distinction between the elect and the
reprobate into the infant world, though always securing salvation to
the offspring of Christian parents, on the ground of inherited Church
membership before and independent of the baptismal ratification ;
while others more wisely and charitably kept silence, or left the non-
elect infants — if there are such, which nobody knows — to the uncov-
enanted mercies of God. But we may still go a step further, within
the strict limits of the Reformed Creed, and maintain, as a pious
opinion, that all departed infants belong to the number of the elect.
Their early removal from a world'of sin and temptation may be taken
1 Conf. August. Art. IX. : 'Damnant Anabaptistas qui . . . affirmant pueros sine baptismo
salvos Jieri.' In the German edition the last clause is omitted.
9 Calovius (in the consensus repetitusfidei vere Lutherance, 1 655), in the name of the strict
Lutherans, rejected the milder view of a merely privative punishment of nnhaptized infants, as
held hy Calixtus (see Henke, Georg Calixtus, Vol. II. Pt. II. p. 295), but it was defended by
others. Fr. Buddseus, one of the most liberal among the orthodox Lutherans, describes the con-
dition of heathen infants as admodum tolerabiKs, though they are exclusi a beatitudine (Instit.
Theol dogm* Lips. 1723, p. 631). Others leave the children to the mercy of God. See V.
E. Loscher's Auserlesene Sammlung der besten neueren Schriften vom Zustand der Seek nach
dem Tode, 1735; republished by Hubert Becker, 1835.
3 Westminster Conf. chap. x. § 3 : ' Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and
saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when and where and how he pleaseth.
So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the minis-
try of the word.' The last sentence may be fairly interpreted as teaching the election and
salvation of a portion of heathen adults.
4 'Abhorremus et detestamur . . . crudele judicium contra infantes sine baptismo morientes^
baptismi absolutam quam asserit necessitate™.' Niemeyer, pp. 357, 358.
§ 52. ZWINGLI'S DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES. 381
as an indication of God's special favor. From this it would follow
that the majority of the human race will be saved. The very doctrine
of election, which is unlimitable and free of all ordinary means, at all
events widens the possibility and strengthens the probability of general
infant salvation ; while those Churches which hold to the necessity of
baptismal regeneration must either consistently exclude from heaven
all unbaptized infants (even those of Christian Baptists and Quakers),
or, yielding to the instinct of Christian charity, they must make excep*
tions so innumerable that these would become, in fact, the rule, and
overthrow the principle altogether.
In the seventeenth century the Arminians resumed the position of
Zwingli, and with their mild theory of original sin (which they do not
regard as responsible and punishable before and independent of actual
transgression), they could consistently teach the general salvation of
infants. The Methodists and Baptists adopted the same view. Even
in the strictly Calvinistic churches it made steady progress, and is now
silently or openly held by nearly all Reformed divines.1
Whether consistent or not, the doctrine of infant damnation is cer-
tainly cruel and revolting to every nobler and better feeling of our
nature. It can not be charged upon the Bible except by logical in-
ference from a few passages (John iii. 5 ; Mark xvi. 16 ; Rom. v. 12),
which admit of a different interpretation. On the other hand, the gen-
eral salvation of infants, though not expressly taught, is far more con<
sistent with the love of God, the genius of Christianity, and the spirit
and conduct of him who shed his precious blood for all ages of man-
kind, who held up little children to his own disciples as models of sim*
plicity and trustfulness, and took them to his bosom, blessing them,
and saying (unconditionally and before Christian baptism did exist),
;Of such is the kingdom of heaven,' and ' "Whosoever shall not re-
ceive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in nowise enter
therein/
1 Dr. Hodge, the most orthodox Calvinistic divine of the age, very positively teaches (Syst.
TheoL Vol. I. p. 26) the salvation of all infants dying in infancy, and represents this as the
* common doctrine of evangelical Protestants. ' This may be true of the present generation,
and we hope it is, though it is evidently inapplicable to the period of scholastic orthodoxy,
both Lutheran and Calvinistic. He supports his view by three arguments : 1 . The analogy
between Adam and Christ (Rom. v. 18, 19, where we have no right to restrict the free gift of
Christ upon all more than the Bible itself restricts it) ; 2. Christ's conduct towards children ;
3. The general nature of God to bless and to save, rather than to curse and destroy.
382 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
6. Salvation of adult heathen. This is a still darker problem
Before Zwingli it was the universal opinion that there can be no sal-
vation outside of the visible Church (extra ecclesiam nulla solus).
Dante, the poet of mediaeval Catholicism, assigns even Homer, Aris-
totle, Virgil, to hell, which bears the terrible inscription —
'Let those who enter in dismiss all hope.'
But the Swiss Reformer repeatedly expressed his conviction, to which
he adhered to the last, that God had his elect among the Gentiles as
well as the Jews, and that, together with the saints of the Old Testa-
ment from the redeemed Adam down to John the Baptist, we may
expect to find in heaven also such sages as Socrates, Plato, Aristides,
Pindar, Numa, Cato, Scipio, Seneca; in short, every good and holy man
and faithful soul from the beginning of the world to the end.1
For this liberality he was severely censured. The great and good
Luther was horrified at the idea that even £ the godless ISTuma' (!) should
be saved, and thought that it falsified the whole gospel, without which
there can be no salvation.2
Zwingli, notwithstanding his abhorrence of heathen idolatry and every
relic of paganism in worship, retained, from his classical training in the
1 His last and fullest utterance on this subject occurs towards the close of his Expositio
Ckr. Fidei, where, speaking of eternal life, he thus addresses the French king : £ Deinde
sperandum est tibi visurum esse sanctorum, prudentium,fidelium, canstantium,fortium, virtu-
osorum omnium, quicunque a condito mundo Juerunt, sodalitatem, costum et contubernium. Hie
duos Adam^ redemptum ac Redemptorem: hie Abelum^ Enochum, Noam, Abrahamum, Isaacum,
Jacobum^ Judam, Afosen, Josuam, Gedeonem, Samuelem,, Pinhen, Heliam, Helisewn^ Isaiam,
ac deiparam Virgimm de qua ille prcecinuit, Davidem, JEzekiam, Josiam, Baptistam, Petrum,
Paulum: hie HERCULEM, THESKUM, SOCRATBM, ^RISTIDEM, ANTIGONTJM, NUMAM, CAMIL-
LUM, CATCHES, SCIPIONES : hie Ludovichum pium antecessoresque tuos Ludomcos, Philippos,
Pipinnos, et quotquot in fide hinc migrarunt maiores tuos videbis. Et summatim, nonfuit vir
bonus, non &rit mens sancta, non est fidelis ani-ma, ab ipso mundi exordio usque ad eius con-
summationem, quern non sis isthic cum Deo visurus. Quo spectaculo quid l&tius, quid amosnius,
quid denique honorificentius ve! cogitari potent? Aut quo iustius omnes animi vires intendimus
quam ad huiuscemodi vitce lucrum f See Niemeyer, p. 61. Similar passages occur in his Epis-
tles, Commentaries, and tract on Providence. Comp. Zeller, p. 163.
2 ' Hoc si verum est, totum evangeliuw falsum est.1 Luther denied the possibility of salva-
tion outside of the Christian Church. In his Catech. Major, Pars II. Art. III. (ed. Rechenb.
p. 503, ed. Mailer, p. 460), he says : * Quicunque extra Christianitatem (ausser der Christen-
Iiett) sunt, sive Gentiles sive Turca sive Judcei autfalsi etiam Christiani et hypocrites, quan*
quam unum tantwn et verum Deum esse credant et invocent (ob sie gleich nur Einen wahrhafti*
gen Gott glauben und anbeteri), neque tamen certum habent, quo erga eos animatus sit animo:
neque quidquamfavoris aut gratice de Deo sili polliceri audent et possunt, quamobrem IN PEB-
PETITA MANENT IRA ET DAMNATIONS (darum sie im ewigen Zorn und Verdammniss bleiberi).*
§ 52. ZWINGLI'S DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES.
school of Erasmus, a great admiration for the wisdom and the manly
virtues of the ancient Greeks and Bomans, and was somewhat un-
guarded in his mode of expression. But he had no idea of sending
any one to heaven without the atonement, although he does not state
when and how it was applied to those who died before the incarnation.
In his mind the eternal election was inseparably connected with the
plan of the Christian redemption. He probably assumed an uncon-
scious Christianity among the better heathen, and a secret work of
grace in their hearts, which enabled them to exercise a general faith
in God and to strive after good works (comp. Rom. ii. 7, 10, 14, 15).
All truth, he says, proceeds from the Spirit of God. He might have
appealed to Justin Martyr and other ancient fathers, who traced all
that was true and good among the Greek philosophers and poets to
the working of the Logos before his incarnation (John i. 5, 10).1
1 Dr. Dorner, with his usual fairness and fine discrimination, vindicates Zwingli against
misrepresentations (Gesch. d. Prot. Theol. p. 284-) : * Man hat daraus eine Gleichguhigkeit
gegen den historischen Christus und sein Werk erschliessen wollen, doss er [ZwingK] auch von
Heiden sagt: sie seien selig geworden; was dieHeiden Weisheit nennen, das nennen die Chri-
sten Glauben. Allein er sieht in allem Wuhren vor Christo mit manchen Kirchenvatem eine
WirJcung und Offenbarung des Logos, ohne jedoch so weit zu gehen, mit Justin die Weisen des
Alterthums, welche nach dem Logos gelebt haben, Christen zu nennen. Er sagt nur, sie seien
nach dem Tode selig geworden, ahnlich wie auch die Kirche dasselbe von den Vatern des Alten
Testaments annimmt. Er konnte dabei wohl diese Seligkeit als durch Christus gewirkt und
erworben denken und hat dieselbejedenfalls nur als in der Gemeinschaft mit Christus bestehend
gedacht. 1st ihm doch durch den ewigen Rathschluss der Versohnung Christus nicht bloss ewig
gewiss, sondern auch gegenwartig fur alle Zeiten. So sind ihm jene Heiden doch selig nur
durch Christus. Freilich das sagt er nicht , dass sie erst im Jenseits sich bekehren; auch er
schneidet mit dem Diesseits die Bekehrung ab. Er lasst ihre im Diesseits bewahrte Treui
gegen das ihnen vom Logos anvertraute Pfund wahrer Erkentniss die Stelle des Glaubens ver->
treten. Aber es ist wohl kein Zweifel^ dass er sie im Jenseits zur Erkentniss und Gemeinsthaft
Christi gelangend denkt. Bei den Frommen A Iten Testaments f or dert auch die Kirche £i. ihrem
Heil nicht eine bestimmtereErkenntniss Christi im Diesseits, die sie hdchstens denPrtytetisn' zu-
schreiben kSnnte.1 Ebrard (in his History of the Dogma of the Lord's Supper^Vol £L p. 77)
fully adopts Zwingli's view : 'Jetzt wird ihm wohlNiemand mehr daraus ein Verbrecncn machen.
Wir wissen, dass Rom. ii. 7: "Denen, die in Beharrlickkeit des Gutesthuns nach unterg&nglichern
Wesen TRACHTEN," ewigesLeben verheissen ist, wir wissen dass nur der positive Unglaube an
das angebotene Heil weder hier noch dort vergeben wird, dass nur aufihn die Stt-afe des ewigen
Todes gesetzt ist; wir wissen, dass auf die erste Auferstehung der in Chrisro Entschlafenen
noch eine zweite derganzen iibrigen Menschheit folgen sott^ die alsdann gerichtet werden sol ten
nach ihren Werken, und dass im neuen Jerusalem selber die Blatter des JLebensbaumes dienen
sotten zur Genesung der Heiden (Apok. xxii. 2). Zwingli hat also an der Hand der heiligen
Schrift das Heidenthum ebenso wie das Judenthum als zu den aroixsiotg rov KOfffiou gehdrig
(Gal. iv. 1-3) angesehen, und mit vollem Rechte einen Socrates neben einen Abraham gesteUt
Ihm besteht die Seligkeit darin, dass das ganze Wunderwerk der gdtilichen Weltpadagogik in
seinen Fruchten klar und herrlich vor den Blicken der erstaunten i^elig^n da liegt.'
384 THE CBEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
During the period of rigorous scholastic orthodoxy which followed
the Reformation in the Kefonned and Lutheran Churches, Zwingli's
view could not be appreciated, and appeared as a dangerous heresy.
In the seventeenth century the Eomanists excluded the Protestants,
the Lutherans the Calvinists, the Oalvinists the Arminiaus, from the
kingdom of heaven ; how much more all those who never heard of
Christ. This wholesale damnation of the vast majority of the human
race should have stirred up a burning zeal for their conversion ; and
yet during that whole period of intense confessionalisrn and exclusive
orthodoxism there was not a single Protestant missionary in the field
except among the Indians in the wilderness of North America.1
But in modern times Zwingli's view has been revived and applauded
as a noble testimony of his liberality, especially among evangelical di-
vines in Germany, and partly in connection with a new theory of
Hades and the middle state.
This is not the place to discuss a point which, in the absence of
clear Scripture authority, does not admit of symbolical statement. The
future fate of the heathen is wisely involved in mystery, and it is un-
safe and useless to speculate without the light of revelation about mat-
ters which lie beyond the reach of our observation and experience.
But the Bible consigns no one to final damnation except for rejecting
Christ in unbelief,2 and gives us at least a ray of hope by significant
examples of faith from Melchizedek and Job down to the wise men
from the East, and by a number of passages concerning the working
of the Logos among the Gentiles (John i. 5, 10 ; Kom. i. 19 ; ii. 14, 15,
18, 19 ; Acts xvii. 23, 28 ; 1 Pet. iii. 19 ; iv. 6). We certainly have no
right to confine God's election and saving grace to the limits of the
visible Church. We are indeed bound to his ordinances and must
submit to his terms of salvation ; but God himself is free, and can save
whomsoever and howsoever he pleases, and he is infinitely more anx-
ious and ready to save than we can conceive.
1 John Eliot, the * Apostle oC the Indians/ labored among the Indians in that polemical
age. He died 1690, eighty-six years of age, at Roxbury, Massachusetts. David Brainerd
(d. at Northampton, Mass., 1747) likewise labored among the Indians before any missionary
zeal was kindled in the Protestant churches of Europe.
2 John iii 18, 36; xiL 48 ; Mark xvL 16.
§ 53. THE FIRST CONFESSION OF BASLE, 1534. 385
§ 53. THE FIKST CONFESSION OF BASLE. A.D. 1534.
Literature.
JAO. CHBIST. BECK: Dissertatio historico-theologica de Confessions Fidei Basileensis EccLesuB, Basil. 1744
MKLCU.OB KIROHHOFEB : Oswald Myconius, Anthtes der Baslerischen Kirche, Zurich, 1813.
BUBCKHAKDT: Reformationsgeschichte von Basel, Basel, ISIS.
K. R. HAGENBAOU : Kritische Geschichte der Entetehung und der Sckicksale der ersten Easier Confession
und der auf sie gegrundeten Eirchenlehre, Basel, 1827 (title ed. 1828).
J. J. HEEZOG : Leben Joh. (Ekolampads und die Reformation der Kirche von Basel, Basel, 1843, 2 vols.
HAQENBACH : Leben OSkolampads und Myconiust Elberfeld, 1859. (Part IL of Vuter und Bergrunder der
reform. Kirche.)
ESOHEE, in Erach und Gruber's Encyklop. Art. Helvet. Confess. Sect. IL Part V.
BEOK : Symb. Bucher der ev. reform. Kirche, Vol. L pp. 28 sqq.
The two Confessions of Basle are published in German and Latin by Niemeyer, Coll. pp. 78-122 ; ii
German alone by Beck and Bockel in their collections. The best reprint of the First Confession ol
Basle, in the Swiss dialect, with the Scripture proofs on the margin, is given by Hagenbach at the close
of his biography of (Ekolampad und Myconius, pp. 465-470.
The First and Second Confessions of Basle belong to the Zwinglian
family, and preceded the age of Calvin, but are a little nearer the G-er-
man Lutheran type of Protestantism.
The rich and venerable city of Basle, on the frontier of Switzerland,
France, and South Germany, since 1501 a member of the Swiss Con-
federacy, renowned for the reformatory (Ecumenical Council of 1430,
and the University founded by Pius II., became a centre of liberal
learning before the ^Reformation. Thomas Wyttenbach, the teacher
of Zwingli, attacked the indulgences as early as 1502. In 1516 Eras-
mus of Rotterdam, at that time esteemed as the greatest scholar of
Europe, took up his permanent residence in Basle, and published the
first edition of the Greek Testament and other important works,
though, after the peasant war and Luther's violent attack on him, he
became disgusted with the Reformation, which he did not understand.
He desired merely a quiet literary illumination within the Catholic
Church, and formed a bridge between two ages. He died, like Moses,
in the land of Moab (1536).1 Wolfgang Capito (Kopfli), an Alsacian,
labored in Basle as preacher and professor from 1512 to 1520, in
fi-iendly intercourse with Erasmus, and was followed by Caspar Hedio
(Held), who continued in the same spirit, and corresponded with Lu-
ther. Another preacher in Basle, Wilhelm Ronblin, carried on the
1 Erasmus turned his keen wit first against the obscurantism of the monks, but afterwards
against the light of the Reformation. He said to Frederick the Wise at Cologne, before the
Diet of Worms (within the hearing of Spalatin) : ' Lutherus peccavit in duobus, nempe quod
tetiffit coronam pontificis et venires monachorum.1 But when Luther, Zwingli, GEcolampadius
took wives, he cajle4 the Reformation ft comedy which .ended alwajs in a marriage.
386 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Corpus Christ! festival a large Bible through the city, with the inscrip-
tion, c This is the true sanctuary ; the rest are dead men's bones.'
The principal Reformer of Basle is John CEcolainpadius (Hatisschein,
b. 1482, d. 1531), who stood to Zwingli in a similar relation as Melanch-
thon to Luther: inferior to him in originality, boldness, and energy, but
superior in learning, modesty, and gentleness of spirit. He was his
chief support in the defense of his doctrine on the eucharist, and took a
prominent part in the Conference with Luther at Marburg. Born at
Weinsberg, he studied philology, scholastic philosophy, law, and the-
ology with unusual success at Heilbronn, Bologna, Heidelberg, and
Tiibingen. When twelve years old he wrote Latin poems, and at
fourteen he graduated as bachelor of arts. He excelled especially as
a Greek and Hebrew scholar, and published afterwards learned com-
mentaries on the prophets and other books of the Bible. He aided
Erasmus in the edition of his Greek Testament, 1516. He was well-
read in the fathers, and promoted a critical study of their writings.
After having labored as preacher for some time in different places, and
taken some part in the reformatory movements of Germany, he settled
permanently at Basle, in 1522, as pastor of St. Martin and as professor
of theology. Here he introduced, with the consent of the citizens, the
German service, the communion under both kinds, and other changes.
But it was only after the transition of Berne that Basle came out de-
cidedly for the Reformation. It was formally introduced Feb. 9, 1529,
according to the model of Zurich, but in a rather violent style, by the
breaking of images and the dissolution of convents, yet without shed-
ding of blood. In other respects the Eeformed Church of Basle is
conservative, and occupies a middle position between Zwinglianism
and Lutherauism. OEcolampadius died Nov. 24, 1531, a few weeks
after his friend Zwingli. He communed with his family, and took an
affecting farewell of his wife, his three children (Eusebius, Irene, and
Aletheia), and the ministers of Basle. His last words were : c Shortly
I shall be with the Lord Christ. . . . Lord Jesus save me !' *
1 See the particulars in Herzog's (Ekolamp. Vol. II. pp. 248 sqq. He was buried with all
the honors of the city in the Minster. But the mouth of slander spread the lie that he had
committed suicide, to which even Luther, blinded by dogmatic prejudice, was not ashamed to
give ear. Melanchthon had great respect for GEcolampadius, stood in friendly correspond-
ence with him, and derived from him a better knowledge of the patristic doctrine of the
eucharist.
§ 58. THE FIRST CONFESSION OF BASLE, 1534. 387
The FIRST CONFESSION OF BASLE (Confessio Fidei JBasiUen&is jprior]
was prepared in its first draft by CEcolampadius, 1531,1 brought into
its present shape by his successor, Oswald Myconius,2 1532, and first
published by the magistrate with a preface of Adelberg Meyer, burgo-
master of Basle, Jan. 21,1534.3 Two or three years afterwards it was
adopted and issued by the confederated city of Miihlhausen, in the Al-
sace; hence it is also called the Confemo M uhlhusana (or Mylhusiana).
It is very simple and moderate. It briefly expresses, in twelve arti-
cles, the orthodox evangelical doctrines of God, the fall of man, the
divine providence, the person of Christ, the Church and the sacraments,
the Lord's Supper (Christ the food of the soul to everlasting life)5
Church discipline, the civil magistrate, faith and works, the judgment,
ceremonies and celibacy, and against the views of the Anabaptists, who
were then generally regarded as dangerous radicals, not only by Lu-
ther, but also by the Swiss and English Reformers. This is the only
Reformed Confession which does not begin with the assertion of the
Bible principle, but it concludes with this noteworthy sentence : ' "We
submit this our Confession to the judgment of the divine Scriptures,
and hold ourselves ready always thankfully to obey God and his Word
if we should be corrected out of said holy Scriptures.3 4
1 See Herzog, 1. c. Vol. II. pp. 217-221, and Hagenbach, Joh. (EJcoL und Oswald My con.
pp. 350 sqq. CEeolampadius, in his last address to the Synod of Basle, Sept. 26, 1531,
added a brief, terse confession of faith, and a paraphrase of the Apostles' Creed. But
the assertion that he composed the Confession of Basle in its present shape, and sent it to the
Augsburg Diet, 1530, rests on a mistake, and has no foundation in any contemporary report.
2 His proper name was Geisshtissler. He was bora at Luzerne, 1488 ; taught and preached
at Zurich; after Zwingli's death he moved to Basle, was elected Antistes or first preacher,
died 1552, and was buried in the Minster. He must not be confounded with Friedrich Myco-
nius, or Mecum, the Lutheran reformer of Thuringia, and court chaplain at Gotha (d. 1546).
3 Under the title, * Bekanntnuss unseres heilioen Christlichen Glaubens vrie es die Kylvh
(Kirche) zu Basel halt.' It is signed by 'Heinrich Rkyner, Rathschreiber der Statt Base/."
See the German text, with the marginal notes, at the close of Hagenbach's biography of GEco-
lampadius and Myconius. A Latin edition appeared 1561 and 1581, which was reproduced
in the Corpus et Syntagma Confess., under the title 'Basiliensis vel Mylhusiana Confessi&
Fidei, anno M.D.XXXII. Scripta Germanice. Latine excusa 1561 et 1 581 . ' Here the date
of composition (1532) is given instead of the date of publication (1534). The more usual
spelling is Basileensis and Muhlhusana. A better Latin edition was issued, 1 647, by the Basle
Professors— Theod. Zwinger, Sebastian Beck, and John Buxtorf— for the use of academic
disputations ; and this Niemeyer has reprinted, pp. 85 sqq.
4 'Postremo, hanc nostram Confessionem judicio SACRJB BIBLKXS; SCRIFTUR-E subjicimus:
eoque pollicemur, si exprosdictis Scripturis in meKoribus instituamur (etwas bess&ren berichtet\
nos omni tempore DEO et SACROSANCTO IPSIUS VERBO, maxima cum gratiarum actione, obse-
cuturos esseS
388 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
c This Confession,5 says the late Professor Hagenbach of Basle,1 < has
remained the public Confession of the Church of Basle to this day. It
is, indeed, no longer annually read before the congregation as formerly
(on Maundy-Thursday at the ante-communion service), but ministers at
their ordination are still required to promise " to teach according to the
direction of God's "Word and the Basle Confession derived therefrom."
A motion was made in the city government in 1826 to change it, but the
Church Council declared such change inexpedient Another motion in
1859 to abolish it altogether was set aside. But the political significance
of the Confession can no longer be sustained, in view of the change of
public sentiment in regard to the liberty of faith and conscience.'
§ 54. THE FIRST HELVETIC CONFESSION, A.D. 1536.
See Literature in § 53. Comp. also PESTALOZZI: Heiwrteh Bullmger^ pp. 183 sqq.
The FIRST HELVETIC CONFESSION (Confessio Helvetica prior\ so called
to distinguish it from the Second Helvetic Confession of 1 566, is the same
with the SECOND CONFESSION OF BASLE (Basileensis posterior), in dis-
tinction from the First of 1534,2 It owes its origin partly to the renewed
efforts of the Strasburg Reformers, Bucer and Capito, to bring about a
union between the Lutherans and the Swiss, and partly to the papal
promise of convening a General Council. A number of Swiss divines
were delegated by the magistrates of Zurich, Berne, Basle, Schaff-
hausen, St. Grail, Miihlhausen, and Biel, to a Conference in the Augus-
tinian convent at Basle, January 30, 1536. Bucer and Capito also ap-
peared. Bullinger, Myconius, Grynseus, Leo Judse, and Megander were
selected to draw up a Confession of the faith of the Helvetic Churches,
which might be used before the proposed General Council. It was exam-
ined and signed by all the clerical and lay delegates, February, 1536, and
first published in Latin.3 Leo Judse prepared the German translation,
which is fuller than the Latin text, and of equal authority.
1 Joh. (Ekolampad vnd Oswald Myconius, p. 353; comp. his History of the Conf. pp.190 sqq.
a Hagenbach, 1. c. p. 357 : 'BASLER Confession heisst diese Confession nur weil sie IN, nicht
weil sie pirn Easel verfasst ist (ahnlich wie die Augsburger Confession von dem Ort der Ueber-
gabe den Namen hat). Bezeichnender ist daher der Name erste HBLVETJSCHB Confession, weil
sie das Gesammtbekenntniss der reformirten Schweizerkirchen ist.'
3 Sub titulo : ' JEcclesiarum per Helvetian Confessio Fidci summaria et generalis,' etc. The
German is inscribed, * Eine kurze und gemeine Bekenntniss des heiligen, wahren und uralten
christlichen Glaubens der Kirchen.&tc., Zurich, Bern, Basel, Strassburg, Constanz, St-Gallen,
Schajfkausen, Muhlhausen, Biel9 etc., 1536, Febntariy.'
§ 54. THE FIRST HELVETIC CONFESSION, 1536. 389
Luther, to whom a copy was sent through Bncer, expressed unex-
pectedly, in two remarkable letters, his satisfaction with the earnest
Christian character of this document, and promised to do all he could
to promote union and harmony with the Swiss.1 He was then under
the hopeful impressions of the c Wittenberg Concordia,' which Bucer
had brought about by his elastic diplomacy. May, 1536, but which
proved after all a hollow peace, and could not be honestly signed by
the Swiss.
The Helvetic Confession is the first Eefonned Creed of national
authority. It consists of twenty-seven articles, is fuller than the first
Confession of Basle, but not so full as the second Helvetic Confession,
by which it was afterwards superseded. The doctrine of the sacra-
ments and of the Lord's Supper is essentially Zwinglian, yet empha-
sizes the significance of the sacramental signs and the real spiritual
presence of Christ, who gives his body and blood — that is, himself — to
believers, so that he more and more lives in them and they in him.
It seems that Bullinger and Leo Judse wished to add a caution
against the binding authority of this or any other confession that
might interfere with the supreme authority of the Word of God and
with Christian liberty.2
* See his letter to Jacob Meyer, burgomaster of Basle, Feb. 17, 1535, and his response to
the Reformed Cantons, Dec. 1, 1537 (in Be Wette, Vol. V. pp. 54 and 83). Luther kept the
peace with the Swiss churches only for a few years. In his book against the Turks, 1541,
he calumniated without provocation the memory of Zwingli; in August, 1543, he acknowl-
edged the present of the Zurich translation of the Bible sent to him by Froschauer, the pub-
lisher, but scornfully declined to accept any further works from preachers 'with whom neither
he nor the Church of God could have any communion, and who were driving people to hell*
(see his letter in De Wette, Vol. V. p. 587) ; in 1544 he violently renewed, to the great grief
of Melanchthon, the sacramental war in his ' Short Confession of the Sacrament f and shortly
before his death he was not ashamed to travesty the first Psalm thus : ' Beatus wY, qui non
abiit in consilio Sacramentariorum : nee stetit in via Cinglianorum, nee sedet in cathedra Ti-
gvrinorum.1 (See his letter to Jac. Probst of Bremen, Jan. 17, 1546, in De Wette, Vol. V.
p. 778. Comp. also on this whole subject Hagenbach, 1. c. p. 358, and Pestalozzi, 1. c. pp. 216
sqq.). Myconius was not disturbed by these outbursts of passion, and continued to respect
Luther without departing from the doctrine of his friend Zwingli. He judged, not without
some reason, that the two Reformers never understood each other; that Luther stubbornly
believed that Zwingli taught the sacrament to be an empty sign, and Zwingli that Luther taught
a gross Capernaitic eating. See his letter of Sept. 7, 1538, to Bibliander, in Simwler's Col-
lection, Vol. XLV., and Hagenbach, p. 350.
8 This addition, which is not found in any copy, is thus stated by Hagenbach and Niemeyer
(Prokg. p. xxxvi.) : ll)urch diese Artikel wolhn wir keineswegs alien Kirchen eine einzige
Gtattbensregel vorschreiben. Denn wir erkennen keine andere Glaubensregel an a?$ die heilige
Sshrift. Wer also mit dieser ubereinstimmt, mit dem sind wir einstimmig, obgleich er ander*
390 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
§ 55. THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION. A.D. 1566.
Literature.
CONI-ESSIO HELVETICA POSTEBIOB. The Latin text, Zurich, 1566, 1568, 1608, 1651, etc. ; recent editions
by J.P. KimlUr, with Preface of Winer, Sulzbach, 1825; by Fritzsche, Turici, 1839; and by Ed. Bnhl,
Vienna, 1866 ; also in the Collections of Corpus et Syntag. Confess., Oxford Sylloge, Augusti, and Siemeyer.
The German text appeared frequently— Zurich, 1566; Basle, 1054; Berne, 1676, etc., and in the Collections of
Beck, Mes*, and B?>ckel. French ed. Geneva, 1566, etc. English translations in Hall's Harmony of Protest-
ant Confessions (not complete) ; another by OWEN JONES : The Church of tJte Living God; also the Sioiss
and Belgian Confessions and Expositions of the Faith, translated into the English language in 1862. London
(Caryl Book Society), 1S65 (complete, but inaccurate), and a third by Prof. JEBEM. H. GOOD (of Tiffin, O.) in
Bomberger's Reformed Church Monthly (TJrsinus College, Pa.), for Sept. 1872, to Dec. 1ST3 (good, but made
from the German translation).
JOH. JAK. HOTTINGER : Helvetische Kirchengeschiehte, Zurich, 1708, Part III. pp. 894 sqq.
HAGENBAOH : Kritische Geschichte der Entetehung und Sehicksale der ersten Easier Confession. Basel,
1827 (1828), pp. 85 sqq.
NIEMEYEB: Collect., Prolegomena, pp. Ixiii.-lxviii.
L. THOMAS: La Confession Helvetique, etudes historico-dogmatigues sur le ami*, siecle. Geneve, 1853.
K.SITOHOFF: Art. Helvetiache Confession, in Eerzog's Theol. JSncyklop. 2d ed. Vol. V. pp. 749-755.
CARL PESTALOZZI : Heinrich Biillinger. Leben und ausgewdhlte Schriften. Nach handschrifttichen und
gleichzeitigen Quellen. Elberfeld, 1858 (5th Part of Vdter und Begr under der reform. Rirche), pp. 413-421.
Before we proceed to the Oalvinistic Confessions, we anticipate the
SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION, the last and the best of the Zwinglian
family.
BULLINGEE.
It is the work of Henry Bnllinger (1504-1575), the pupil, friend,
and successor of Zwingli, to whom he stands related as Beza does
to Calvin. He was a learned, pious, wise, and faithful man, and the
central figure in the second period of the Reformation in German
Switzerland. Born at Bremgarten, in Aargau,1 educated in Holland
and Cologne, where he studied patristic and scholastic theology, and
read with great interest the writings of Luther and the Loci of Me-
lanchthon, he became on his return intimately acquainted with Zwin-
gli, accompanied him to the Conference at Berne (1528), and after
laboring for some years at Cappel and Bremgarten, he was chosen
his successor as chief pastor (Antistes) at Zurich, Dec. 9, 1531. This
von unserer Confession verschiedene Redensarten brauchte. Denn auf die Sache selbst und
die Wahrheit, nicht auf die Worte soil man sehen. Wir stellen also jedem frei, diejenigen
Redensarten zu gebrauchen, welche er fur seine Kirche am passendsten glaubt, und werden uns
auch dergleichen Freiheit bedienen, gegen Verdrehung des wahren Sinnes dieser Confession uns
aber zu vertheidigen wissen. Dieser Ansdrucke haben wir unsjetzt bedient, urn unsere Ueber-
zeugung darzustellen.' Pestalozzi. p. 186, gives the same declaration more fully.
1 He was one of five sons of Dean Bullinger, who, like many priests of those days, in open
violation of the laws of celibacy, lived in regular wedlock, but was much respected and be-
loved even by his bishop of Constance. He opposed Samson's traffic in indulgences, and
became afterwards a Protestant through the influence of his son.
§ 55. THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION, 1566. 391
was shortly after the catastrophe at Cappel, in the darkest period of
the Swiss Reformation.
Bullinger proved to be the right man in the right place. He
raised the desponding spirits, preserved and completed the work of
his predecessor, and exerted, by his example and writings, a com-
manding influence throughout the Eeformed Church inferior only
to that of Calvin. He was in friendly correspondence with Calvin,
Bucer, Melanchthon, Laski, Beza, Cranmer, Hooper,1 Lady Jane Grey,2
and the leading Protestant divines and dignitaries of England. Some
of them had found an hospitable refuge in his house and with his
friends during the bloody reign of Mary (1553-58), and after their
return, when raised to bishoprics and other positions of influence
under Queen Elizabeth, they asked his counsel, and kept him informed
about the progress of reform in their country. This correspondence
is an interesting testimony not only to his personal worth, but also to
the fraternal communion which then existed between the Anglican
and the Swiss Eeformed Churches.3 Episcopacy was then not yet
1 Bishop Hooper wrote from prison shortly before his martyrdom, May and December,
1554, to Bullinger, as 'his revered father and guide,' and the best friend he had ever found, and
commended to him his wife and two children (Pestalozzi, 1. c. p. 445).
2 Three letters of this singularly accomplished and pious lady, the great-granddaughter of
Henry VII., to Bullinger, full of affection and gratitude, are still preserved as jewels in the
City Library of Zurich, but his letters to her are lost. She translated a part of his book on
Christian marriage into Greek, and asked his advice about learning Hebrew. Edward VI.,
against the will of Henry VIII. , bequeathed his crown to Lady Jane Grey to save the Prot-
estant religion, and this led to her execution at the Tower of London, Feb. 12, 1554, by order
of Queen Mary. She met her fate with the spirit of a martyr, and sent, as a last token of
friendship, her gloves to Bullinger, which were long preserved in his family (Pestalozzi, 1. c.
p. 445).
3 See the Zurich Letters, published by 'The Parker Society,' Cambridge, second edition
(chronologically arranged in one series), 1846. They contain, mostly from the archives of
Zurich (the Simmler Collection), Geneva, and Berne, letters of Bishops John Jewel, John
Parkhurst, Edmund Grindal, Edwin Sandys, Horn, John Foxe. Sir A. Cook, and others to
Bullinger, as also to Gualter (Zwingli's son-in-law), Peter Martyr, Simmler, Lavater, Calvin, and
Beza. The news of Bullinger's death was received in England with great grief. W. Barlow
wrote to J. Simmler (Bullinger's son-in-law), March 13, 1576 (p. 494): 'How great a loss your
Church has sustained by the death of the elder Bullinger, of most happy memory, yea, and
our Church also, towards which I have heard that he always entertained a truly fraternal and
affectionate regard, and indeed all the Churches of Christ throughout Europe.* Bishop Cox
wrote to Gualter in the same year (p. 496): 'My sorrow was excessive for the death of Henry
Bullinger, whom, by his letters and learned and pious writings, I had . . . known intimately for
many years, although he was never known personally to me. Who would not be made sor-
rowful by the loss of snch and so great a man, and so excellent a friend ? not to mention that
the whole Christian Church is disquieted with exceeding regret that so bright a star is for-
bidden any longer to shine upon earth.'
VOL. I.--C u
392 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
deemed f,ie only valid form of the Christian ministry. He opened
his house also to Italian Protestants, and treated even the elder Sozino,
who died at Zurich, with great kindness and liberality, endeavoring to
restrain his heretical tendency. In the latter years of his life he was
severely tried by the death of his best friends (Bibliander, Froschauer,
Peter Martyr, Pellican, Gessner, Blaarer, Calvin, Hyperius), and by a
fearful pestilence which deprived him of his beloved wife and three
daughters, and brought him to the brink of the grave. He bore all
with Christian resignation, recovered from disease, and continued
faithfully to labor for several years longer, until he was called to his
reward, after taking affectionate farewell of all the pastors and pro-
fessors of Zurich, thanking them for their devotion, assuring them of
his love, and giving each one of them the hand with his blessing. He
assumed the care of the Church of Zurich when it was in a dangerous
crisis j he left it firmly and safely established.
COMPOSITION.
Bullinger was one of the principal authors of the First Helvetic
Confession, and the sole author of the Second. In the intervening
thirty years Calvin had developed his amazing energy, while Roman-
ism had formularized its dogmas in the Council of Trent.
Bullinger composed the Second Helvetic Confession in 1562, in
Latin, for his own use, as an abiding testimony of the faith in which
he had lived and in which he wished to die. He showed it to Peter
Martyr, who fully consented to it, shortly before his death (Nov. 12,
1562). Two years afterwards he elaborated it more fully during the
raging of the pestilence, and added it to his will, which was to be
delivered to the magistrate of Zurich after his death, which he then
expected every day.1
PUBLICATION.
But events in Germany gave it a public character. The pious
Elector of the Palatinate, Frederick III., being threatened by the Lu-
1 See Bullinger's notes to the list of his writings ; J. H. Hottinger, Scho/a Tigurina, p. 76 ?
J. J. Simmler, Oratio de historia Confessionis Helvetica?, in Simmler's Collection, as quoted
by Pestalozzi, 1. c. pp, 416 sq. and 641. Also J. J. Hottinger, ffelvet. Kirchengesch Pt. IIL
p. 894.
§ 5*. THE SECOND HELVETIC CONCESSION, 1566. 393
therans With exclusion from the treaty of peace on account of his
secession to the Reformed Church and publication of the Heidelberg
Catechism (1563), requested Bullinger (1565) to prepare a clear and
full exposition of the Reformed faith, that he might answer the charges
of heresy and dissension so constantly brought against the same. Bul-
linger sent him a manuscript copy of his Confession. The Elector was
so much pleased with it that he desired to have it translated and published
in Latin and German before the meeting of the Imperial Diet, which was
to assemble at Augsburg in 1566, to act on his alleged apostasy.
In the mean time the Swiss felt the need of such a Confession as a
closer bond of union. The First Helvetic Confession was deemed too
short, and the Zurich Confession of 1545, the Zurich Consensus of
1549, and the Geneva Consensus of 1552 touched only the articles of
the Lord's Supper and predestination. Conferences were held, and
Beza came in person to Zurich to take part in the work. Bullinger
freely consented to a few changes, and prepared also the German ver-
sion. Geneva, Berne, Schaffhausen, Biel, the Grisons, St. Gall, and
Muhlhausen expressed their agreement. Basle alone, which had its
own Confession, declined for a long time, but ultimately acceded.
The new Confession appeared at Zurich, March 12, 1566, in both
languages, at public expense, and was forwarded to the Elector and to
Philip of Hesse.1 A French translation appeared soon afterwards in
Geneva under the care of Beza.
In the same month the Elector Frederick made such a manly and
noble defense of his faith before the Diet at Augsburg, that even his
Lutheran opponents were filled with admiration for his piety, and
thought no longer of impeaching him for heresy.
1 The foil title is : * Confessio et Expositio simplex Orthodoxce Fidei, et Dogmatum Catho-
Kcorum syncerce Religionis Christianas. Concorditer ab Ecclesice Christi Ministris, qui sunt
in Helvetia, Tiguri^ JSernce [Glaronoe, Basilece], Scaphusii [Abbatiscellce]^ Sangalli, Curies
Rhetorum, et apud Conf&deratos, Mylhusii item, et JBiennce: quibus adjunxerunt se et Genevensis
[et Neocomensis] Ecclesice Ministri [una cum aliis Evangelii Prosconibus inPolonia, Hungaria,
et Scotia] ; edita in hoc, ut universis testentur fidetibus, quod in unit ate verce et antiques
Christi JEccleszce perstent, neque ulla nova, aut erronea dogmata spargant, atque ideo etiam
nihil consortii cum ullis Sectis aut Hceresibus habeant. Ad Rom. cap. X. vers. 10. Corde
creditur adjustitiam, ore autem confessio Jit ad salutem. Tiguri : Excudebat Ckristophorus
Froschoverus, Mense Martio, MDLX VI. ' Glarus, Basle, Appenzell, Neufchatel, Poland, Hun-
gary, and Scotland, which we have included in brackets, approved the Confession at a later
period, and hence are not mentioned in the first edition, hut partly in the second edition of
1568, and more fully in those of 1644 and 1651,
THE CREEDS OF CHElsTENDOM.
AUTHORITY.
The Helvetic Confession is the most widely adopted, and hence the
most authoritative of all the Continental Reformed symbols, with the
exception of the Heidelberg Catechism. Besides the Swiss Cantons
and the Palatinate, in whose name it was first issued, the Reformed
Churches of Nenfchatel (1568), Basle, France (at the Synod of La
Kochelle, 1571), Hungary (at the Synod of Debreczin, 1567), Poland
(1571 and 1578), and Scotland (1566)1 gave it their sanction. It was
well received also in Holland and England.2
It was translated not only into German, French, and English, but
also into Dutch, Magyar, Polish, Italian, Arabic, and Turkish.3
OHABACTEB AND VALUE.
Like most of the Confessions of the sixteenth century, the Helvetic
Confession is expanded beyond the limits of a popular creed into a
lengthy theological treatise. It is the matured fruit of the preceding
symbolical labors of Bullinger and the Swiss Churches. It is in sub-
stance a restatement of the First Helvetic Confession, in the same
order of topics, but with great improvements in matter and form. It
is scriptural and catholic, wise and judicious, full and elaborate, yet
simple and clear, uncompromising towards the errors of Rome, moder-
ate in its dissent from the Lutheran dogmas. It proceeds on the con-
1 The ministers of Scotland wrote to Beza, September, 1566 : ' Subscripsimus omnes, gui in
hoc ccstu interfuimus, et hujus Academic sigillo publico obsignavimus.' This is stated after
the Pre&ce in the edition of the Corpus et Syntagma, and in Memeyer, p. 465, but without
naming the ccetus and Academia.
* I find no evidence of a formal sanction by the Anglican Church ; but that the Confession
was well received there may be Inferred from the high esteem in which Bullinger was held
(see p. 391), and still more from the fact that his Decades (a popular compend of theology in
five series of sermons, each containing ten sermons) were, next to Calvin's Institutes, the high-
est theological authority in England, and were recommended, as late as 1 586, to the study of
young curates along with the Bible. See Ch. Hardwick : A History of the Christian Church
during the Reformation (third edition, London, 1873, p. 241), where the following order of the
Southern Convocation is quoted from Wilkins, IV. 321 : * Every minister having cure, and
being under the degrees of master of arts and bachelor of law, and not licensed to be a public
preacher, shall, before the second day of February next, provide a Bible, and Bullinger's De-
cades in Latin and English, and a paper book,' etc. On Bullinger's Decades, and his abridg-
ment of the same in the Handbook of the Christian Religion (1556), see Pestalozzi, pp. 386,
469, 505 sqq.
3 See Niemeyer, Proleg. p. Ixvii. sq.
§ 55. THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION, 1566. 395
viction that the Reformed faith is in harmony with the true Catholic
faith of all ages, especially the ancient Greek and Latin Church.
Hence it is preceded by the Imperial edict of 380 (from the
recognized Justinian code), which draws the line between orthodoxy
and heresy, and excludes as heresies only the departures from the
Apostolic and Nicene faith. It inserts also the brief Trinitarian creed
ascribed to the Roman Pope Damasus (from the writings of Jerome),
and referred to in said decree as a standard of orthodoxy.1 Harmony
in the fundamental doctrines of the ancient Church is declared suffi-
cient, and brotherly union consistent with variety in unessentials, such
as in fact always has existed in the Christian Church. As in former
Confessions, so also in this, Bullinger distinctly recognizes, in the spirit
of Christian liberty and progress, the constant growth in the knowl-
edge of the Word of God, and the consequent right of improvement
in symbolical statements of the Christian faith.
Upon the whole, the Second Helvetic Confession, as to theological
merit, occupies the first rank among the Reformed Confessions, while
in practical usefulness it is surpassed by the Heidelberg and Westmin-
ster Shorter Catechisms, and in logical clearness and precision by the
Westminster Confession, which is the product of a later age, and of the
combined learning and wisdom of English and Scotch Calvinism.2
1 Several creeds "bear the name of Damasus, and are given by Hahn, Bibliothek der Sym-
bole, pp. 179-190. The form inserted in the Confession is from a letter to Jerome (Opera^
ed. Vallarsi, Tom. XI. p. 145), and is thus referred to in the Imperial edict : ' Cunctos populos
. . . in ea volumus religions versari quam divinum Petrum Apostolum tradidisse Momanis . . .
quamque PONTIPICBM DAMASUM sequi claret, et Petrum Alexandria Episcopum, virum Apo-
stolicce sanctitatis.1
9 I add some testimonies on the Second Helvetic Confession. Hagenbach (1. c. p. 86) : '/»
ihrer ganzen Anlage und in der Durchfuhrung einzelner Punkte^ namentlich in praktischer
Beziehung (in der Scheidung des Geistlichen und Weltlichen, u. s. zo.) ist sie ein wahres dogma-
tischesKunstwerk zu nennen.' Pestalozzi (Bullinger, p. 422) : 'Diese Confession, zu der Bullinger
zweimal Angesichts des Todes sick bekannte, erscheint als das reife Ergebniss seines Glaubens-
lebens, seiner reichen inneren und ausseren Erfahrung, als der Inbegrijf seiner theologischen
Ueberzeugung wie seiner kirchlichen Grundsatze, als die achte, wahrhafte Entwicklung und
Fortbildung seiner fruheren Bekenntnisse, zumal der ersten helvetischen Confession (von 1536).
Sie ist ein Muster von Klarheit und Mnfachheit, wie selbst hervorragende Gegner anerkennen,
ausgezeichnet durch den Ueberblick, der das Ganze der christlichen Lehre umfasst,der v&llige
Ausdruck von Bui lingers Gesinnung, scharf ausgepragt gegenuber den VerirrungendesrSmisch-
katholischen Kirchenthums, milde in Bezug auf die lutherischen Besonderheiten, offne dock der
eigenen Ueberzeugung irgend Eintrag zu thun. Was aber vomehmlich beachtenswerth, sie ist
durchaus getragen von dem vollen, klaren und ruhigen Bewusstsein, das mit so dwchgreifender
Kraftigkeit Bullinger beseelte, der achten apostolischen und katholischen Kirche anzugehdren, der
vahrhaft berechtigten und reehtgldubigen Kirche Christi. Sie ist fern davon, bloss mit der
396 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
CONTENTS*
In view of the importance of this Confession, I give here a
densed translation of the original.1 It consists of thirty chapters,
which cover in natural order all the articles of faith and discipline
which then challenged the attention of the Church.
CHAP. I. THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. — This chapter lays down the evan-
gelical rule of faith, or the objective principle of Protestantism.
We believe and confess that the Canonical Scriptures of the Old
and New Testaments are the true Word of God, and have sufficient
authority in and of themselves, and not from men ; since God himself
through them still speaks to us, as he did to the Fathers, the Prophets,
and Apostles. They contain all that is necessary to a saving faith and
a holy life ; and hence nothing should be added to or taken from them
(Deut. iv. 2; Eev. xxii. 18, 19).
From the Scriptures must be derived all true wisdom and piety, and
also the reformation and government of the Churches, the proof of
doctrines, and the refutation of errors (2 Tim. iii. 16, 17; 1 Tim. iii. 15 ;
1 Thess. ii. 13 ; Matt. x. 20). God may illuminate men directly by
the Holy Spirit, without the external ministry ; yet he has chosen the
Scriptures and the preaching of the Word as the usual method of in-
struction.
The apocryphal books of the Old Testament, though they may be read
for edification, are not to be used as an authority in matters of faith.2
Bibel in der Hand alks das zu verwerfen, was nicht ausdrucklich in der heiligen Schrift
gelehrt und geboten ist, wiewohl ihr diese von hochster Geltung ist, als oberste Rkhtschnur der
christlichen Wahrheit. Sie bricht nicht mit dem geschichtlich Gewordenen (der Ueberliefe-
rung\ ausser sofern dieses der Schrift nicht gemass ist. Die gauze, Entwiclclung der christ-
lichen Kirche seit den Tagen der Apostel bis aufdie Gegenwart ist ihr von hohem Werthe und
Jindet ihre ernste Berucksichtigung, nur doss sie sick nach der obersten Norm muss richten
lassen. Insofern steht sie mit ihrer evangelischen Schwesterlcirche lutherischen Bekenntnisses
ganz auf demselben Boden und Tcann ihr stets die Hand reichen zur Annaherung, mb'glicher
Weise auch eu einer Einigung, wenn gleich die Aujfassung der christlichen Wahrheit nach
gewissen Richtungen hin sich unterscheiden und deshalb die Entscheidung uber diese oder jene
einzelnen Lehrpunkte und Gebrauche verschieden ausf alien mag.' Dr. Hodge (Syst. Theol.
Vol. III. p. 634) : *The Second Helvetic Confession is, on some accounts, to be regarded as
the most authoritative symbol of the Reformed Church, as it was more generally received than
any other, and was sanctioned by different parties/
1 The full Latin text will be found in Vol. in.
* This is the first symbolical exclusion of the Apocrypha from the Canon. The Lutheran
symbols leave this question open.
§ 55. THE SECOND HELVETIC COOTESSION, 1566. 397
We condemn the doctrines of the Gnostics and Manichseans, and all
others who reject the Scriptures in whole or in part.
CHAP. II. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SCRIPTURES ; THE FATHERS,
COUNCILS, AND TRADITIONS. — We acknowledge only that interpretation
as true and correct which is fairly derived from the spirit and lan-
guage of the Scriptures themselves, in accordance with the circum-
stances, and in harmony with other and plainer passages (2 Pet. i.
20, 21).
We do not despise the interpretation of the Greek and Latin fathers
and the teaching of Councils, but subordinate them to the Scriptures;
honoring them as far as they agree with the Scriptures, and modestly
dissenting from them when they go beyond or against the Scriptures.
In matters of faith we can not admit any other judge than God him-
self, who through his Word tells us what is true and what is false,
what is to be followed, and what is to be avoided.
We reject traditions which contradict the Scriptures, though they
may claim to be apostolical. For the Apostles and their disciples
could not teach one thing by writing, and another by word of mouth.
Bt. Paul preached the same doctrine to all the churches (1 Cor. iv. 17;
2 Cor. i. 13 ; xii. 18). The Jews likewise had their traditions of the
elders, but they were refuted by our Lord as ' making void the Word
of God3 (Matt. xv. 8, 9 ; Mark vii. 6, 7).
CHAP. III. OF GOD, HIS UNITY AND TRINITY. — We believe and teach
that God is one in essence (Deut. vi. 4 ; Exod. xx. 2, 3, etc.), and three
in persons — Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The Father hath begotten
the Son from eternity; the Son is begotten in an unspeakable man-
ner ; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeds from both, and is to be wor-
shiped with both as one God. There are not three Gods, but three
persons — consubstantial, coeternal, distinct as to person and order, yet
without any inequality. The divine essence or nature is the same in
the Father, the Son, and the Spirit (Luke i. 35 ; Matt. iii. 17 ; xxviii.
19 ; John i. 32 ; xiv. 26 ; xv. 26).
In short, we accept the Apostles5 Creed, which delivers to us the
true faith.
We therefore condemn the Jews and Mohammedans, and all who
blaspheme this holy and adorable Trinity. We also condemn all here-
tics, who deny the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost.
398 THE CBEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
CHAP. IV. OF IDOLS, IMAGES OF GOB AND OF SAINTS. — As God is a
spirit, he can not be represented by any image (John iv. 24 ; Isa. xi.
18 ; xliv. 9, 10 ; Jer. xvi. 19 ; Acts xvii. 29, etc.).
And although Christ assumed man's nature, yet he did so not in
order to afford a model for sculptors and painters. He instituted for
the instruction of the people the preaching of the Gospel, and the
sacraments, but not images. Epiphanius tore down an image of Christ
and some saint iu a church, because he regarded it contrary to the
Scriptures.
CHAP. Y. THE ADORATION AND INVOCATION OF GOD THROUGH THE
ONLY MEDIATOR JESUS CHRIST. — God is the only object of worship
(Matt. iv. 10). And he is to be worshiped ciii spirit and in truth5
(John iv. 24), and through our only and sufficient Mediator and Advo-
cate Jesus Christ (1 Tim. ii. 5 ; 1 John ii. 1).
Hence we neither adore nor invoke the departed saints, and give
no one else the glory that belongs to God alone (Isa. xlii. 8 ; Acts
iv. 12).
Nevertheless, we neither despise nor undervalue the saints, but honor
them as the members of Christ and the friends of God, who have glo-
riously overcome the flesh and the world ; we love them as brethren,
and hold them up as examples of faith and virtue, desiring to dwell
with them eternally in heaven, and to rejoice with them in Christ.
Much less do we believe that the relics of saints should be worshiped.
'Nor do we swear by saints, since it is forbidden to swear by the name
of strange gods (Exod. xxiii. 13 ; Deut. x. 20).
CHAP. VI. THE PROVIDENCE or GOD. — We believe that the wise,
eternal, and almighty God by his providence preserves and rules all
things in heaven and earth (Psa. cxiii. 4-6; cxxxix. 3-4; Acts xvii.
28; Eom.xi.36).
We therefore condemn the Epicureans, who blasphemously affirm
that God neither sees nor cares for men (Psa. xciv. 3-9).
We do not despise as unnecessary the means whereby divine Provi-
dence works, but make use of them as far as they are commended to
us in the Word of God. We disapprove of the rash words of those
who say that our efforts and endeavors are vain.
St. Paul well knew that he was sailing under the providence of God,
who had assured him that he must bear witness at Rome (Acts xxiii.
§ 55. THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION, 1566. 399
11), and that not a soul should perish (xxviL 21, 34); nevertheless, when
the sailors were seeking flight, he said to the centurion and the soldiers:
6 Unless these abide in the ship, ye can not be saved' (ver. 31). For
God has appointed the means by which we attain to the end.1
CHAP. VIL OF THE CKEATION OF ALL THINGS; OF ANGELS, THE
DEVIL, AND MAN. — This good and almighty God created all things,
visible and invisible, by his eternal Word, and preserves them by his
coeternal Spirit (Psa. xxxiii. 6 ; John i. 3). He made all things very
good and for the use of man (Gen. i. 31).
We condemn the Manichseans who impiously imagine two coetemal
principles, the one good, the other evil, and two antagonistic gods.
Angels and men stand at the head of all creatures. Angels are
ministers of God (Psa. civ. 4), and ministering spirits sent for them who
shall be heirs of salvation (Heb. i. 14).
The devil was a murderer and liar from the beginning (John viii. 44).
Some angels persevered in obedience, and are ordained unto the
faithful service of God and men ; but others fell of their own accord
and ran into destruction, and have become enemies of God and men.
Man was made in the image and likeness of God, and placed by
God in paradise as ruler over the earth (Gen. i. 27, 28 ; ii. 8). This is
celebrated by David in the 8th Psalm. Moreover, God gave him a
wife and blessed them (Gen. ii. 22 sqq.).
Man consists of two diverse substances in one person — of an immortal
soul, which, when separated from the body, neither sleeps nor dies, and
of a mortal body, which at the last judgment, shall be raised again from
the dead.
We condemn those who deny the immortality, or affirm the sleep of
the soul, or teach that it is a part of God.
CHAP. VIII. OF MA-NT'S FALL, Srsr, AND THE CAUSE OF SIN. — Man
was created according to the image of God, in true righteousness and
holiness, good and upright. But by the instigation of the serpent, and
1 Here we have a clear recognition of secondary causes in opposition to fatalism and de-
terminism which has sometimes been charged upon Calvinism. The Westminster Confession
(Chap. III.) is still more explicit: 'God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy
counsel of his own will freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass ; yet so an
thereby neither is God the author of sin ; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures,
nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (Acts ii.
23 ; iv. 27, 28 ; xvii. 23, 24, comp. with 36 ; Matt. xvii. 12 ; John xix. 11 ; Prov. xvi. 33),"
4:00 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
through his own guilt, he fell from goodness and rectitude, and becaruq
with all his offspring, subject to sin, death, and various calamities.
Sin is that inborn corruption of man, derived and propagated from
our first parents, whereby we are immersed in depraved lusts, averse to
goodness and prone to all evil, and unable of ourselves to do or think
any thing that is good. And as years roll on, we bring forth evil
thoughts, words, and deeds, as corrupt trees bring forth corrupt fruits
(Matt. xii. 33). Therefore we are all by nature under the wrath of
God, and subject to just punishment.
By death we understand not only the dissolution of the body, but
also the eternal punishments of sin (Eph. ii. 1, 5 ; Rom. v. 12).
We therefore acknowledge that there is original sin in all men, and
that all other sins, whether mortal or venial, also the unpardonable sin
against the Holy Ghost, spring from this same source. We acknowl-
edge also that sins are not equal, but some are more grievous than
others (Matt. x. 14, 15 ; xi. 24 ; 1 John v. 16, 17).
We condemn the Pelagians, who deny original sin ; the Jovinianists,
who with the Stoics declare all sins to be equal ; and those who make
God the author of sin against the express teaching of Scriptures (Psa.
v. 5-7 ; John viii. 44).
When God is said to blind or harden men, or to give them over to a
reprobate mind (Exod. vii. 13 ; John xii. 40), it is to be understood as a
righteous judgment. Moreover, God overrules the wickedness of men
for good, as he did in the case of the brethren of Joseph.
CHAP. IX. OF FBEE WILL Aim MAN'S ABILITY. — The will and
moral ability of man must be viewed under a threefold state.
First, before the fall, he had freedom to continue in goodness, or to
yield to temptation.
Secondly, after the fall, his understanding was darkened and his
will became a slave to sin. (1 Cor. ii. 14 ; 2 Cor. iii. 5 ; John viii. 34 ;
Bom. viii. 7). But he has not been turned into ' a stone or stock ; ' nor
is his will (voluntas) a non-will (noluntas).1 He serves sin willingly,
not unwillingly (servit peccato non nolens, sed volens). In external
1 Expressions used by Luther, Flacius, and the Formula of Concord. The Helvetic and
other Reformed Confessions are much more guarded on this point, and teach that man,
though totally depraved, remains a moral and responsible being in the act of sinning. Me-
lanchthon, in his later period, came to the same view, but went beyond .it into svnergism.
Comp. above, j>j>. 262, 270.
§ 55. THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION, 1566. 4Q1
and worldly matters man retains his freedom even after the fall, under
the general providence of God.
Thirdly, in the regenerate state, man is free in the true and proper
sense of the term. His intellect is enlightened by the Holy Spirit to
understand the mysteries and the will of God ; and the will is changed
by the Spirit and endowed with the power freely to will and to do
what is good (Rom. viii. 5, 6 ; Jer. xxxi. 33 ; Ezek. xxxvi. 26 ; John viii.
36; Phil. i. 6, 29; ii.18).
In regeneration and conversion men are not merely passive, but also
active. They are moved by the Spirit of God to do of themselves
what they do. But even in the regenerate there remains some infirm-
ity. The flesh strives against the spirit to the end of life (Rom. vii.
14; Gal. v. 17).
We condemn the Manichseans, who deny that evil originated in the
free will of man, and the Pelagians, who teach that fallen man has
sufficient freedom to keep God's commandments. The former are re-
futed by Gen. i. 27 ; Eccles. vii. 29 ; the latter by John viii. 36.
CHAP. X. THE PREDESTINATION OF GOD AND THE ELECTION OF
SAINTS. — God has from eternity predestinated or freely chosen, of his
mere grace, without any respect of men, the saints whom he will save
in Christ (Eph. i. 4: ; 2 Tim. i. 9, 10).
God elected us in Christ and for Christ's sake, so that those who are
already implanted in Christ by faith are chosen, but those out of Christ
are rejected (2 Cor. xiii. 5).1
Although God knows who are his, and a c small number of the
elect' is spoken of, yet we ought to hope well of all, and not rashly
count any one among the reprobate (2 Tim. ii. 19 ; Matt. xx. 16 ; Phil,
i. 3 sqq.).
We reject those who seek out of Christ whether they are chosen, and
what God has decreed concerning them from eternity. We are to
hear the gospel and believe it, and be sure that if we believe and are
O JT '
in Christ, we are chosen. We must listen to the Lord's invitation,
'Come unto me' (Matt. xi. 28), and believe in the unbounded love of
God, who gave his own Son for the salvation of the world, and will
1 ' Ergo non sine media, licet non propter ullum meritum nostrum, sed in Cfkristo et propter
Christum nos elegit Deus, ut quijam sunt in Ckristo insiti per jftdem, illi ipsi etiam sint efexi,
reprobi vero, gui sunt extra Christum^
402 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
not that ' one of these little ones should perish5 (John iii. 16 ; Matt
xviii. 14:) J
Let, therefore, Christ be the mirror in which we behold our predes-
tination. We shall have a sufficiently evident and sure testimony of
being written in the book of life if we live in communion with him,
and if in true faith he is ours and we his.
And if we are tempted concerning our predestination, let this be our
comfort — that God's promises are general to believers, as he himself
says: 'Seek, and ye shall find, and whosoever asketh shall receive'
(Matt vii. 8 sq.). "\Ve pray with the whole Church, £ Our Father which
art in heaven ;' by baptism we are ingrafted into the body of Christ,
and we are often fed in the Church by his flesh and blood unto life
everlasting. Thus strengthened, let us £ work out our own salvation
with fear and trembling, for it is God who worketh in us both to will
and to do according to his good pleasure' (Phil. ii. 12. 13).2
CHAP. XI. JESUS CHRIST TRUE GOD AND MAN, AND THE ONLY SAV-
IOUR OF THE WORLD. — We believe and teach that the Son of God, our
Lord Jesus Christ, was from eternity predestinated by the Father to be
the Saviour of the world ; that he was begotten of the Father from all
eternity in an ineffable manner (Isa. liii. 8 ; Micah v. 2 ; John i. 1).
Therefore the Sou, according to his Divinity, is coequal and consub-
itantial with the Father ; true God, not merely by name or adoption or
by conferring of a dignity, but in essence and nature (1 John v. 20 ;
Phil. ii. 6 ; Heb. i. 2, 3 ; John v. 18 ; xvii. 5).
We abhor the blasphemous doctrine of Arius and Servetus in op-
position to the Son of God.
We also believe and teach that the same eternal Son of God became
the Son of Man, of the seed of Abraham and David, not through the
will of man (Ebionites), but he was conceived by the Holy Ghost and
born of the ever-Yirgin Mary (ex Maria semper virgine), as taught in
the gospel history and the Epistles (Matt. i. 18 ; Luke i. 34, 35 ; 1 John
iv. 3; Heb. ii. 16). The body of Christ was therefore neither a mere
appearance, nor brought down from heaven (the Gnostics, Valentinus
1 Comp. ver. 10 and 11. A very strong passage for the doctrine of infant salvation, and
go understood by Zwingli and Bullinger.
3 This Tenth Article is moderately Calvinistic or Augustinian, and neither Arminian nor
Melanchthonian (synergistic), as has sometimes been claimed. Comp. Schweizer, Central-
dogmen, Vcl. I. p. 4:76 ; also 5iulhof 's art. in Herzog.
§ 55. THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION, 1566. 4QS
and Marcion). Moreover his soul was not without reason (Apollinaris),
nor his flesh without a soul (Eunomius) ; but he had a rational soul,
and a flesh with senses capable of true suffering (Matt. xxvi. 36 ; John
xii. 27).
Hence we acknowledge in one and the same Lord Jesus Christ two
natures, a divine and a human, which are conjoined and united in one
person without absorption or confusion and mixture.
"We worship one Lord Christ, not two ; one true God-Man, coequal
(or of one substance, consubstantialis, 6juoov<noc) with the Father as
regards his divine nature, and coequal with us men, sin only excepted
(Heb. iv. 15), as regards his human nature.
We therefore abominate Nestorianism, which dissolves the unity of
person, and Eutychianisrn, Monothelitism, and Monophysitism, which
destroy the proper character of the human nature.
We do not teach that the divine nature of Christ did suffer, nor that
the human nature of Christ is every where present. The true body of
Christ was not deified so as to put off its properties and to be absorbed
into the divine substance. But we believe that our Lord Jesus Christ
did truly suffer for us in the flesh (1 Pet iii. 18 ; iv. 1), and that the
Lord of glory was crucified for us (1 Cor. ii. 8). For we accept be-
lievingly and reverently the c communication of properties,' which is
deduced from the Scriptures and employed by the ancient Church in
explaining and harmonizing seemingly contradictory passages.1
We believe and teach that Christ, in the same flesh in which he
died, rose from the dead (Luke xxiv. 30), and ascended to the right
hand of God in the highest heaven (Eph. iv. 10), which signifies his
elevation to the divine majesty and power, but also a definite place
(John xiv. 2 ; Acts iii. 21).
The same Christ will come again to judgment, when the wickedness
1 'Nam communicationem idiomatum ex Scripturis petitam et db universa vetustate in ex-
plicandis componendisque Scripturarum locis in speciem pugnantibus usurpatam, religiose et
reverenter recipimus et usurpamus.' It is an error, therefore, to charge the Reformed Church
with rejecting the communicatio idiomatum. It admits the communication of the properties
of one nature to the whole person, but denies the communication of the properties of one
nature to the other, viz., the genus majestaticum, so called, whereby the infinite attributes of
the divine nature (as omnipresence and omnipotence) are ascribed to the human nature, and
the genus tapeinoticon, whereby the finite attributes of the human nature are ascribed to the
divine. Either of these forms leads necessarily to a Eutychian confusion of natures. The
Lutheran Church teaches the genus majestaticum, as a support to its doctrine of the Eucharist,
but rejects the genus tapeinoticon.
404: THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
of the world shall have reached the highest point, and Antichrist cor-
rupted the true religion. He will destroy Antichrist, and judge the
quick and the dead (2 These, ii. 8; Acts xvii. 51,52; 1 These, iv. 17).
The believers will enter into the mansions of the blessed ; the unbe-
lievers, with the devil and his angels, will be cast into everlasting
torment (Matt xxv. 4:1 ; 2 Tim. ii. 11 ; 2 Pet. iii. 7).
We reject all who deny the real resurrection ; who teach the ulti-
mate salvation of all the godless, and even the devil. We also reject
the Jewish dream of a millennium, or golden age on earth, before the
last judgment.
We believe and teach that Christ is the only Eedeemer of the whole
world, in whom all are saved that were saved before the law, under
the law, and under the gospel, or will yet be saved to the end of the
world (John x. 1, 7 ; Acts iv. 12 ; xv. 11 ; 1 Cor. x. 1, 4 ; Eev. xiii. 8).
We therefore confess and teach with a loud voice : Jesus Christ is
the only Saviour of the world, the King and High-priest, the true
Messiah, whom all the shadows and types of the Law and the Prophets
did prefigure and promise. God did send him to us, and we need not
look for another. There remains nothing but that we should give all
glory to him, believe in him, and rest in him alone.
And, to say much in a few words, we sincerely believe and loudly
confess all that has been determined out of the Holy Scriptures con-
cerning the mystery of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
is contained in the creeds and decrees of the first four oecumenical
Councils held in Nicese, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Ohalcedon, in
the Creed of St. Athanasius, and all similar creeds ; and we reject all
Contrary to the same. In this manner we retain, unchanged and entire,
the Christian, orthodox, and catholic faith ; knowing that nothing is
contained in the aforesaid creeds which does not correspond with the
Word of God and aid in setting forth the true faith.1
1 An express and emphatic indorsement of the oecumenical Creeds, on the ground of their
agreement with the Scriptures : 'Et ut pauds multa hujus causce dicamus, qucecunque de in-
carnatianis Domini nostri Jew Ohristi mysterio definita sunt ex Scripturis sanctis, et compre-
hensa symbolis etc sententtis quatuor primarum et prcestantissimarum Synodorum celebratarum
Nicecs, ConstantinopoK, JSphesi, et Chalcedony una cum beati Athanasii Symbolo, et omnibus
his similibus symbolis, credimus corde syncero, et ore libero ingenue projitemur, condemnantes
omnia his contraria. Atgue ad hunc modum retinemus inmolatam sive integram fidem Chri*
stianam, orthodoxam atque catholicam : scientes, symbolis pr&dictis nihil contineri, guod non
sit conforme Verio Dei^ et prorsus faciat ad synceram fidei ezplicationem.1
§ 55. THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION, 1566. 4-Q5
CHAP. SH. THE LAW OF GOD.— The law of God explains the will of
God and the difference between what is good and bad, just and unjust.
It is therefore good and holy. It is twofold : the law of nature in-
scribed on the hearts of men (Horn. ii. 15), and the written law of
Moses. The latter we divide for perspicuity's sake into the moral law,
comprehended in the two tables of the Decalogue (Exod. xx. ; Deut.
v.) ; the ceremonial law, concerning worship and sacred rites ; and the
judicial, concerning polity and economy.
The law of God is complete, and allows no addition nor subtraction
(Deut. iv. 2 ; Isa. xxx. 21). It is given to us, not that by keeping it we
might be justified, but that we may be led to a knowledge of sin and
guilt, and, despairing of our own strength, turn by faith to Christ
(Eom. iv. 15 ; iii. 20 ; viii. 3 ; Gal. iii. 21-24). Christ is the end of the
law, and redeemed us from the curse of the law (Eom. x. 4; Gal. iii.
13). He enables us to fulfill the law, and his righteousness and obe-
dience are imputed to us through faith.
The law is abolished inasmuch as it no more condemns and works
wrath in them that believe, who are under grace, and not under the
law. Besides, Christ has fulfilled all the types of the law, and put the
substance in the place of the shadows ; in him we have all fullness.
Nevertheless, the law is useful in showing us all virtues and vices, and
in regulating the life of new obedience. Christ did not come to de-
stroy, but to fulfill the law (Matt, v, IT).
We therefore condemn old and modern Antinomianism.
CHAP. XIII. THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST. — The law works wrath
and announces the curse (Eom. iv. 15 ; Deut. xxvii. 26) ; the gospel
announces grace and blessing (John i. 17). Nevertheless, those who
lived before and under the law were not deprived altogether of the
gospel, but had great promises (Gen. iii. 15 ; xxii. 18 ; xlix. 10). The
promises were partly temporal, partly spiritual and eternal. By the
gospel promises the fathers obtained salvation in Christ.
In the strict sense of the term the gospel is the glad tidings of sal-
vation by Christ, in whom we have forgiveness, redemption, and ever-
lasting life. Hence the history of Christ recorded by the four Evan-
gelists is justly called the gospel.
Compared with the legalism of the Pharisees the gospel appeared to
be a new doctrine, as it is even now called new by the Papists ; but in
406 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
fact it is the oldest doctrine, for God foreordained from eternity to
save the world through Christ, and has revealed this plan in the gospel
(2 Tim. i. 9, 10). It is therefore a grave error to call our evangelical
faith a recent innovation.
CHAP. XIV. OF REPENTANCE AND CONVERSION. — Repentance (^era-
voia) is a change of heart produced in a sinner by the word of the gos-
pel and the Holy Spirit, and includes a knowledge of native and actual
depravity, a godly sorrow and hatred of sin, and a determination to
live hereafter in virtue and holiness. True repentance is turning to
God and all good, and turning away from the devil and all evil. It is
the free gift of God, and not the result of our own strength (2 Tim.
ii. 25).
"We have examples of true repentance in the woman that was a sin-
ner (Luke vii. 38), in Peter after his fall (xxii. 62), in the prodigal son
(xv. 18), and the publican in the temple (xviii. 13).
It is sufficient to confess our sins to God in private and in the pub-
lic service ; it is not necessary to confess to a priest, for this is nowhere
commanded in the Scriptures; although we may seek counsel and
comfort from a minister of the gospel in time of distress and trial
(comp. James v. 16).
The keys of the kingdom of heaven, out of which the Papists forge
swords, sceptres, and crowns, are given to all legitimate ministers of
the Church in the preaching of the gospel and the maintenance of dis-
cipline (Matt, xvi 19 ; John xx. 23 ; Mark xvi. 15 ; 2 Cor. v. 18, 19).
We condemn the profitable popish doctrine of penance and of indul-
gences, and apply to them Peter's word to Simon Magus: 'Thy money
perish with thee' (Acts viii 20).
CHAP. XV. OF TRUE JUSTIFICATION OF BELIEVERS. — 'To justify'
means, with the Apostle when treating of this subject, to remit sins,
to absolve from guilt and punishment, to receive into grace, and to
pronounce just (Eom. viii. 33 ; Acts xiii. 38 ; Deut. xxv. 1 ; Isa. v. 23).
By nature we are all sinners and guilty of death before the tribunal
of God, and we can be justified only by the merits of Christ crucified
and risen again. For his sake God is reconciled, and imputes to us not
our sins, but the righteousness of Christ as our own, so that we are
purged arid absolved from sin, death and damnation, and heirs of
eternal life. Properly speaking, God alone justifies and justifies only
§55. THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION, 1566. 4QT
for Christ's sake, not imputing to us our sins, but the righteousness o£
Christ.
We therefore teach and believe, with the Apostle, that the sinner is
justified by faith alone in Christ (sola fide in Christum), not by the law,
nor by any works (Rom. iii. 28 ; iv. 2 sqq. ; Eph. ii. 8, 9). Righteous-
ness is imputed to faith because it receives Christ as our righteousness
and ascribes all to the grace of God, but not because it is our work : it
is the gift of God. As we receive food by eating, so faith appropri-
ates Christ.
We do not divide justification by ascribing it partly to the grace of
God or to Christ, and partly to our works or merits, but solely and
exclusively to the grace of God in Christ through faith. We must first
be justified before we can do good works. Love is derived from faith
(lTim.i.5; Gal. v. 6).
Therefore we speak here not of a false, dead faith, but of a living
and vivifying faith which lives in Christ, our life, and proves its life by
living works. Even James (chap, ii.) does not contradict our doctrine,
for he speaks of a dead faith which even demons have, and he shows
that Abraham proved his living and justifying faith by works.
CHAP. XVI. FAITH AND GOOD WORKS, THEIR REWARD AND THE
MERIT OF MAN. — Christian faith is not a human opinion and persua-
sion, but a most firm confidence and clear and steady assent of the
mind, a most certain apprehension of the truth of God as laid down in
the Scriptures and the Apostles' Creed, and therefore of God himself
as the highest good, and especially of the divine promise and of Christ,
who is the crown of all promises. Such a faith is a free gift of God,
who of his grace grants it to his elect through his Holy Spirit by means
of the preaching of the gospel and believing prayer when and in what
measure he pleases. This faith has degrees and is subject to growth ;
hence the prayer of the Apostles: 'Lord, increase our faith' (Luke
xvii. 5). [Then follow a number of Scripture proofs : Heb. xi. 1 ; 2
Cor. i. 20 ; Phil. i. 29 ; Rom. xii. 3 ; 2 Thess. ii. 3 ; Roin. x. 16 ; Acts
xiii.48; Gal. v. 6, etc.]
We teach that good works proceed from a living faith, through the
Holy Spirit, and are done by believers according to the will and rule
of the Word of God (2 Pet L 5 sqq. ; 1 Thess. iv. 3, 6, 23).
Good works must be done, not to merit thereby eternal life, which is
VOL. L— D i>
408 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
a free gift of God (Kom. vL 23), nor for ostentation or from selfishness,
which the Lord rejects (Matt. vi. 2 ; xxiii. 5), but for the glory of God,
to adorn our calling and to show our gratitude to God, and for the
good of our neighbor (Matt. v. 16 ; Eph. iv. 1 ; Col. iii. 17 ; Phil. ii. 4: ;
Tit. iii. 14). Although we teach that man is justified by faith of
Christ and not by any works, we do not condemn good works. Man is
created and regenerated by faith in order to work unceasingly what is
good and useful. 'Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit' (Matt,
vii. 17). < He that abideth in me, the same bringeth forth much fruit'
(John xv. 5). 'We are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus
unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk
in them3 (Eph. ii. 10).
We condemn, therefore, all who despise good works or declare them
useless; at the same time we do not deem them necessary to salva-
tion, in the sense that without them no one was ever saved; for we are
saved by Christ alone ; but good works are necessarily born of faith,
and improperly salvation may be ascribed to them which properly is
ascribed to grace (Bom. xi. 6).
God is well pleased and approves of works which are done by us
through faith (Acts x. 35 ; Col. i. 9, 10). He also richly rewards them
(Jer. xxxi. 16 ; Matt v. 12; x. 42). But we ascribe this reward not to
the merits of man who receives it, but to the goodness and faithfulness
of God who promises and grants it, although he owes nothing to his
creatures. Even if we have done all, we are unprofitable servants
(Luke xvii. 10). We say with Augustine, that God crowns and rewards
in us, not our merits, but the gifts of his grace. It is a reward of
grace, not of merit. We have nothing but what we have received
(comp. 1 Cor. iv. 7).
We therefore condemn those who so defend the merits of men as to
set at naught the grace of God.
CHAP. XVIL OF THE CATHOLIC AND HOLY CHTTBCH OF GOD, AND OF
THE ONLY HEAD OF THE CHURCH. — Since God willed from the begin-
ning that men should be saved and come to the knowledge of truth, it
follows of necessity that there always was, and now is, and shall be to
the end of time, a Church or an assembly of believers and a communion
of saints, called and gathered from the world, who know and worship
the true God in Christ our Saviour, and partake by faith of all the
§ 55. THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION, 1566. 409
benefits freely offered through Christ They are fellow-citizens of the
same household of God (Eph. ii. 19). To this refers the article in the
Creed : 'I believe the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints/
And as there is but one God, one Mediator between God and man,
Jesus the Messiah, one pastor of the whole flock, one head of this body,
one Spirit, one salvation, one faith, one testament or covenant, there
must needs be but one Church, which we call catholic, that is, universal,
spread throughout all parts of the world and all ages.
We therefore condemn the Donatists, who confined the Church to
some corners of Africa, and also the Roman exclusiveness, which pre-
tends that the Roman Church alone is the catholic Church.
Th6 Church is divided, not in itself, but on account of the diversity
of its members. There is a Church militant on earth struggling
against the flesh, the world, and the devil, and a Church triumphant
in heaven rejoicing in the presence of the Lord ; nevertheless there is
a communion between the two. The Church militant is again divided
into particular Churches. It was differently constituted among the
Patriarchs, then under Moses, then under Christ in the gospel dispen-
sation ; but there is only one salvation in the one Messiah, in whom
all are united as members of one body, partaking of the same spiritual
food and drink. We enjoy a greater degree of light and more perfect
liberty.
This Church is called the house of the living God (1 Tim. iii. 15),
built of lively and spiritual stones (1 Pet. ii. 5), resting on an immova-
ble rock, the only foundation (1 Cor. iii. 11), the ground and pillar of
the truth (1 Tim. iii. 15). It can not err as long as it rests on the rock
Christ, on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles ; but it errs
as often as it departs from him who is the truth.1 The Church is also
called a virgin, the bride of Christ, the only and beloved (2 Cor. xi. 2),
and the body of Christ, because the believers are living members of
Christ under him the head (Eph. i. 23, etc.).
The Church can have no other head than Christ. He is the one
universal pastor of his flock, and has promised his presence to the end
of the world. He needs, therefore, no vicar ; for this would imply
1 'Non errat ilia, quamdiu innititur petrce, Chi*isto et fundamento Prophetarum et Aposto-
lorum. Nee mirum* si erret, quoties deserit ilium, qui solus est veritasS
4:10 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
his absence. [Those who introduce a double headship and govern-
ment in the Church plainly belong to the errorists condemned by the
Apostles (2 Pet. ii. ; Acts xx. ; 2 Cor. xi. ; 2 Thess. ii.).] l
But by rejecting the Roman head we do not introduce disorder
and confusion into the Church of Christ, since we adhere to the gov-
ernment delivered by the Apostles before there was any Pope. The
Eoman head preserves the tyranny and corruption in the Church, and
opposes and destroys all just reformation.
They object that since our separation from Eome all sorts of con-
troversies and divisions have arisen. As if there had never been any
sects and dissensions in the Eoman Church, in the pulpits, and among
the people ! God is indeed a God of order and peace (1 Cor. xiv. 33) ;
nevertheless there were parties and divisions even in the Apostles5
Church (Acts xv. ; 1 Cor. iii. ; Gal. ii.). God overrules these divisions
for his glory and for the illustration of truth.
Communion with the true Church of Christ we highly esteem, and
deny that those who separate from it can live before God. As there
was no salvation out of the ark of Noah, so there is no certain sal-
vation out of Christ, who exhibits himself to the elect in the Church
for their nourishment.2
But we do not so restrict the Church as to exclude those who from
unavoidable necessity and unwillingly do not partake of the sacra-
ments, or who are weak in faith, or still have defects and errors. God
1 The passage in brackets, according to the Zurich MS., was substituted by Bullinger on
the margin for the following sentence, which he wished to have canceled (see note in Nie-
meyer, p. 501) : 'We reject the Romish fiction concerning an official head and title of the
servant of the servants of Christ; for experience proves that this is an empty boast, and that
the Pope makes himself an enemy of Christ, and exalts himself above God, sitting in the
temple of God, and showing himself that he is God1 (2 Thess. ii. 4).
* * Ut extra arca?n Noe non erat utta sa/os, pereunte mundo in diluvio, ita credimus, extra
Christum, qui se electis in Ecclesia fruendum prcsbet, nullam esse salittem certam: et proinde
docemus, vivere volentes non oportere separari a vera, Christi EcclesiaS This high estimate
of the Church reminds one of Cyprian's 'Extra, ecclesiam nulla salusj of Tertullian's 'Qui
ecclesiam non habet matrem, Deum non habet patremj and of Augustine's * JBgo evangelio non
crederem, nisi me corn-mover et ecclesicz auctoritas.1 Calvin, in his Institutes (lib. IV. c. 1),
uses similar language. But we must remember that the Calvinistic system does not bind
election to the visible means of grace, and admits the possibility of salvation without baptism
Bullinger denies only the certainty of salvation (salutem certam) outside of the Church (comp.
above what follows) ; and so must be understood the Westminster Confession of Faith,
Ch. XXV. 2, when it asserts that out of the visible catholic or universal Church * there is nq
ordinary possibility of salvation/
§ 55. THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION, 1566.
had friends even outside of the Jewish people. We know what hap-
pened to Peter, and to chosen believers from day to day, and we know
that the Apostle censured the Christians in G-alatia and Corinth for
grave offenses, and yet calls them holy churches of Christ. Tea, God
may at times by a righteous judgment allow the Church to be so ob-
scured and shaken as to appear almost annihilated, as in the days of
Elijah (1 Kings xix. 18; comp. Eev. vii. 4, 9); but even then he has
his true worshipers, even seven thousand and more ; for < the founda-
tion of God standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that
are his' (2 Tim. ii. 19). Hence the Church may be called invisible,
not that the men composing it are invisible, but because they are
known only to God, while we are often mistaken in our judgment
There are also many hypocrites in the Church, who outwardly conform
to all the ordinances, but will ultimately be revealed in their true char-
acter and be cut off (1 John ii. 19 ; Matt. xiii. 24, 4/T).
The true unity of the Church is not to be sought in ceremonies and
rites, but in the truth and in the catholic faith, as laid down in the
Scriptures and summed up in the Apostles' Creed. Among the an-
cients there was a great diversity of rites without dissolving the unity
of the Church.
CHAP. XVIII. ON THE MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH, THEIR INSTITUTION
AND OFFICES. — God always used ministers for gathering and govern-
ing the Church (Eom. x. 14, 17; John xiii. 20; Acts xvi. 9; 1 Cor.
iii. 9, etc.).
God employed the Patriarchs, Moses, and the Prophets as teachers
of their age. At last he sent his only-begotten Son, filled with infinite
wisdom, to be our infallible guide. Christ chose the Apostles, and
these ordained pastors in all the Churches (Acts xiv. 23), whose suc-
cessors have taught and governed the Church to this day.
The ministers of the New Testament are called Apostles, prophets,
evangelists, bishops, presbyters, pastors, and teachers (1 Cor. xii. 28 ;
Eph. iv. 11). In subsequent times other names were introduced, as
patriarchs, archbishops, metropolitans, archpresbyters, deacons, and sub-
deacons, etc. But we are satisfied with the offices instituted by the
Apostles for the teaching and governing of the Church.
A minister should be lawfully called and chosen by the Church, and
fexcel in sacred learning, pious eloquence, prudence, and unblemished
412 THE CBEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
character (1 Tim. iii. 2 ; Tit. i. 5). When elected, a minister should be
ordained of the elders by public prayer and the laying on of hands.
We reject arbitrary intruders and incompetent pastors. But we ac-
knowledge that innocent simplicity may be more useful than haughty
learning.
A minister of the New Testament is not a priest, as in the Jewish
dispensation, offering sacrifices for the living and the dead. Christ is
our eternal High-priest, who fulfilled and abolished typical sacrifices
by his one perfect sacrifice on the cross ; and all believers are priests
offering spiritual sacrifices— namely, thanksgiving and praise to God
continually.
All ministers are equal in power and commission. Bishops and
presbyters were originally the same in office, and governed the Church
by their united services, mindful of the words of the Lord : c He who
will be chief among you, let him be your servant' (Luke xxii. 26).
Jerome (Com. on Titus) says : < Before, by the instigation of the devil,
party spirit and sectarianism arose, the churches were governed by the
common counsel of the presbyters ; but afterwards, when every one
thought that thoso whom he had baptized belonged to him, not to Christ,
it was decreed that one of the presbyters should by election be placed
over the rest, and be intrusted with the care of the whole Church, and
thus the seed of schisms be destroyed.' But Jerome does not present
this decree as divine, for he soon adds that presbyters and bishops
know that this distinction is based on ecclesiastical custom, and not on
divine command. Therefore no one can be lawfully forbidden to re-
turn from human custom to the ancient constitution of the Church of
Christ.
The chief duties of ministers are the preaching of the gospel, the ad-
ministration of the sacraments, the care of souls, and the maintenance
of discipline. To do this effectually they must live in the fear of God,
pray constantly, study the Scriptures diligently, be always watchful,
and shine before all by purity of life. In the exercise of discipline,
they should remember that the power was given to them for edifica-
tion and not for destruction (2 Cor. x. 8 ; comp. Matt. xiiL 29).
We reject the error of the Donatists, who make the efficacy of the
preaching and the sacraments to depend on the moral character of the
minister. The voice of Christ must be heard and obeyed even out of
§ 55. THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION, 1566. 413
the mouth of an unworthy servant (Matt, xxiii. 3) ; and the sacraments
are efficacious to the worthy recipient by virtue of their divine appoint-
ment and the Word of Christ. On these things St. Augustine has
much disputed from the Scriptures against the Donatists.
Nevertheless, proper control and discipline should be exercised over
the doctrine and conduct of ministers in synods. False or immoral
teachers should not be tolerated, but warned or deposed. We do not
disapprove general or oecumenical councils if they are conducted, ac-
cording to the apostolic example (Acts xv.), for the welfare, and not
for the corruption of the Church.
As the laborer is worthy of reward, the minister is entitled to the
maintenance of himself and family from the congregation he serves
(1 Cor. ix. 9 sqq. ; 1 Tim. v. 18, etc.). Against the Anabaptists, who
denounce ministers living off their ministry.
CHAP. XIX. THE SACRAMENTS OF THE CHURCH or CHRIST. — With
the preaching of the Word are joined sacraments or sacred rites insti-
tuted by God as signs and seals of his promises for the strengthening
of our faith, and as pledges on our part for our consecration to him.
The sacraments of the Jewish dispensation were circumcision and
the paschal lamb ; the sacraments of the Christian dispensation are
baptism and the Lord's Supper.
The Papists count seven sacraments. Of these we acknowledge re-
pentance, ordination of ministers, and marriage as useful institutions
of God, but not as sacraments. Confirmation and extreme unction are
inventions of men, which may be abolished without any loss. We ab-
hor all merchandise carried on with the sacraments by Romish priests.
The supreme benefit of the sacraments is Christ the Saviour, that
Lamb of God slain for our sins from the foundation of the world, and
that Rock of which all our fathers drank. So far the sacraments of
the Old and New Testaments are the same. But we have the abiding
substance.
Sacraments consist of the Word, the sign, and the thing signified.
By the Word of God and institution of Christ they become sacraments
and are sanctified. The sign in baptism is water, the thing signified is
regeneration or the washing from sins. The sign in the Lord's Sup-
per is bread and wine, the thing signified is the veritable body and
blood of Christ sacrificed for us. The signs are not changed into the
414: THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
things signified; for then they would cease to be sacramental signs,
representing the things signified ; but they are sacred and efficacious
signs and seals. For he who instituted baptism and the Supper intend-
ed that we should receive not the outward form only, but the inward
blessing, that we should be truly washed from all our sins through
faith, and be made partakers of Christ.
The truth and power of the sacraments depend neither on the wor-
thiness of the minister nor that of the receiver, but on the faithfulness
of God. Unbelievers do not receive the things offered ; but the fault is
in men, whose unbelief doth not annul the faith of God (Rom. iii. 3).
CHAP. XX. OF HOLY BAPTISM. — Baptism is instituted by Christ
(Matt, xxviii. 19 ; Mark xvi. 15). There is only one baptism in the
Church ; it lasts for life, and is a perpetual seal of our adoption. To
be baptized in the name of Christ is to be enrolled, initiated, and re-
ceived into the covenant, into the family and the inheritance of the
sons of God, that, cleansed from our sins by the blood of Christ, we
may lead a new and innocent life. We are internally regenerated
by the Holy Ghost, but we receive publicly the seal of these blessings
by baptism. Water washes away filth, and refreshes and comforts the
body ; the grace of God inwardly and invisibly cleanses the soul.
By baptism we are separated from the world and consecrated to
God. In baptism we confess our faith and pledge obedience to God.
We are enrolled into the holy army of Christ to fight against the
world, the flesh, and the devil.
Later human additions to the primitive form of baptism, such as ex-
orcism, the use of burning light, oil, salt, spittle, we judge to be un-
necessary.
Baptism is not to be administered by women or by midwives, but by
the ministers of the Church.
We condemn those who deny that children of believers should be
baptized. For to children belongs the kingdom of God, and they are
in covenant with God — why then should not the sign of the covenant
be given to them ? We are therefore no Anabaptists, and have no
communion with them.
CHAP. XXL OF THE HOLT SUPPER OF OUR LORD. — The Lord's Sup-
per, or Eucharist, is a grateful commemoration of the benefits of re-
demption, and a spiritual feast of believers instituted by Christ, wherein
§ 55. THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION, 1566. 4\ 5
he nourishes us with his own flesh and blood by true faith unto eternal
life. It signifies and seals to us the greatest benefit and blessing ever
conferred on the race of mortals, that he truly delivered his body and
shed his blood for the remission of our sins. In it we eat his flesh
which is meat indeed, and drink his blood which is drink indeed (Matt
xxvi. 20 sqq. ; Luke xxii. 19 ; 1 Cor. xi. 21 sqq. ; John vi. 51 sqq.).
This eating is not corporeal and Capernaitic, by the mouth and the
stomach, but spiritual, i. a, by the Holy Ghost through faith. < The
flesh,' corporeally eaten, c profiteth nothing ; it is the spirit that quiek-
eneth ' (John vi. 63). < I am the bread of life ; he that cometh unto
me shall never hunger; and he that belie veth on me shall never thirst3
(John vi. 51). So that eating and drinking here means to come unto
Christ and to believe in him. As Augustine says: 'Why preparest
thou the tooth and the stomach ? Believe, and thou hast eaten.'
Besides the spiritual eating, in the daily communion of the soul with
Christ, there is also a sacramental eating, whereby the believer not only
inwardly partakes of Christ, but also receives the visible signs and
seals of his body and blood at the Lord's table.1 And with the signs
he receives the thing itself.2 He is nourished and strengthened by
spiritual food. The signs are also sure pledges that Christ died not
only for men in general, but also individually for every believing com-
municant. Besides, in partaking of this ordinance we obey the com-
mand of our Lord, celebrate his atoning death, give thanks for the
great redemption, and openly profess our faith before the congregation.
But those who commune unworthily and without faith receive only
the visible signs to their own condemnation or judgment (1 Cor. xi.
27 sqq.).
We therefore do not so conjoin the body and blood of Christ with
1 * Prater superiorem manducationem spiritualem e$t et sacramentalis manducatio corporis
Domini, qua fidelis non tantum spiritualiter et interne participat vero corpore et sanguine
Domini, sed foris etiam accedendo ad mensam Domini accipit visibile corporis et sangui-
nis Domini sacrajnentum.1 This is strangely mistranslated by Owen Jones (1. c. p. 173):
'Moreover, also, the sacramental eating of the body of the Lord is a superior spiritual eat-
ing/ etc. Bullinger rightly distinguishes between the purely spiritual communion with
Christ's flesh and blood (i. e., his real humanity), spoken of in the sixth chapter of John, and
the sacramental communion in the Eucharist, which includes all the benefit of the former
with the additional blessing of the visible signs and seals of Christ's body broken for us, and
Christ's blood shed for us.
3 * Qui foris verafide sacramentum percipit, idem ille non signum duntaxat percipit, sed re
ipta quoque, ut diximus,fruitur. '
THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
bread and wine as to say that the bread itself is the body (except
sacramentally), or that the body of Christ is corporeally hid under the
bread, and should be adored under the form of bread, or that whosoever
receives the signs receives also necessarily the thing itself. [Against
the Lutheran theory.] The body of Christ is in heaven at the right
hand of the Father (Mark xvi. 19 ; Heb. viii. 1 ; xii. 2) ; and hence we
must raise our hearts to heaven.
And yet he is not absent from his people when they celebrate his
communion. -For as the sun in heaven is efficaciously present with us, so
much more is Christ the sun of righteousness with us, not, indeed, cor-
poreally, but spiritually by his enlivening and vivifying operation, even
as he in the Last Supper explained that he himself would be present
with us (John xiv.-xvi.). Hence we have not a Supper without Christ,
but an unbloody and mystical Supper, as universal antiquity called it.
Moreover, the Lord's Supper reminds us that we are members of his
body, and should live peaceably with all our brethren, and grow and
persevere in holiness of life.
Therefore it is very proper that we should duly prepare ourselves by
self-examination in regard to our repentance and faith in Christ (1 Cor.
xL 28).
As to the external celebration, we adhere to the original form, con-
sisting in the annunciation of the Word of God, devout prayers, the
Lord's action, and its repetition in breaking bread, and distributing it
together with the wine, in eating the body and drinking the blood of
our Lord, in grateful remembrance of his death, in thanksgiving, and
in holy reunion of the brethren as one body.
We disapprove of the withdrawal of the cup contrary to the express
command of our Lord : ' Drink ye all of it' (Matt. xxvi. 27).
The mass — whatever it may have been in ancient times — has been
turned from a salutary institution into a vain show, and surrounded
with various abuses, which justify its abolition.
CHAP. XXII. OF SACRED AND ECOLESIASTIOAL ASSEMBLIES. — It is
lawful and right for all men privately to read the Scriptures for edifi-
cation. At the same time the maintenance of religion demands regu-
lar public services. These should be conducted decently, in order, and
for edification, in the language understood by the people.
CHAP. XXIII. OF CHTJECH PRATERS* SINGING, AND CANONICAL HOURS.
§ 55. THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION, 1566. 417
- — Public prayers in sacred assemblies should be made in the vulgar
tongue understood by all. Every prayer is to be offered to God alone,
through the sole mediation of Christ, not to saints or through them.
Churches are at liberty to vary from the usual forms. Prayers are not
superstitiously to be confined to particular places or hours. Long and
tedious prayers in public assemblies should be avoided. Singing is not
indispensable, but lawful and desirable. Canonical hours are not pre-
scribed in the Scriptures, and are unknown to antiquity.
CHAP. XXIV. OF FEASTS, FASTS, AND THE CHOICE OF MEATS. — The
Lord's day is consecrated, from the times of the Apostles, to the wor-
ship of God and to sacred rest. But we observe it in Christian free-
dom, not with Jewish superstition, neither do we believe that one day
is in itself holier than another.
If congregations in addition commemorate the Lord's nativity, cir,
cumcision, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, and the outpouring
of the Holy Ghost, we greatly approve of it. But feasts instituted by
men in honor of saints we reject, though the memory of the saints is
profitable, and should be commended to the people with exhortations
to follow their virtues.
True Christian fasting consists in temperance, abstinence, watchful-
ness, self-government, and chastisement of our flesh, that we may the
easier obey the Spirit. Such fasting is a help to prayer and all virtues.
There are also public fasts appointed in times of affliction and ca-
lamity, when people abstain from food altogether till evening, and
spend all time in prayer and repentance. Such fasts are mentioned
by the Prophets (Joel ii. 12 sq.), and should be observed when the
Church is afflicted and oppressed. Private fasts are observed by each
of us as we may judge it profitable to our souls.
All fasts ought to proceed from a free and willing mind, and be ob-
served in a spirit of true humility, in order to vanquish the flesh and
to serve God more fervently, but not in order to gain the favor of
men or the merit of righteousness.
The fast of forty days (Lent) has the testimony of antiquity, but is
not enjoined in the Scriptures, and ought not to be imposed upon the
conscience of the faithful. There was great diversity and freedom in
the early Church as to the time of fasting, as we learn from Irenseus,
.and Socrates the historian.
418 THE CREEPS OF CHRISTENDOM.
As to the choice of meats, we hold that in fasts we should abstain
from all such food or drink as stimulates the carnal desires. But oth-
erwise we know that all the creatures of God are good (Gen. L 31), and
may be used without distinction, but with moderation and thanksgiving
(1 Cor. x. 25 ; Tit i. 15). Paul calls the prohibition of meats a doctrine
of the demons (1 Tim. iv. 1 sqq.), and reproves those who by excessive
abstinence wish to acquire the fame of sanctity.
CHAP. XXV. OF CATECHIZING, AND OF THE VISITATION AND CONSO-
LATION OF THE SICK. — The greatest care is to be bestowed on the re-
ligious instruction of the youth, especially in the Ten Commandments,
the Apostles' Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the nature of the sacra-
ments. Churches should see to it that children receive catechetical
instruction.
It is one of the chief duties of Christian pastors to visit, comfort, and
strengthen the sick, and pray for them in private and in public. But
the extreme unction of the Papists we disapprove.
CHAP. XXVI. OF THE BURIAL OF THE FAITHFUL, THE CAKE OF THE
DEAD, OF PUBGATORY, AND THE APPARITION OF SPIRITS. — The bodies
of believers, which are the temples of the Holy Ghost, and will rise
again in the last day, should be honorably committed to the earth,
without superstition, and their relatives, widows, and orphans should
be tenderly cared for.
We believe that the faithful after death go directly to Christ, and
need not the prayers of the living. Unbelievers are cast into hell,
from which there is no escape.
The doctrine of purgatory is opposed to the Scriptures, and to the
plenary expiation and cleansing through Christ (comp. John v. 24;
xiii 10).
The tales about the souls of the departed appearing to the living and
requesting their services for deliverance we judge to be mockeries or
deceptions of the devil. The Lord forbids necromancy (Deut. xviii.
10) ; and the rich man was told that if his brethren on earth hear not
Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one
rose from the dead (Luke xvi. 30).
CHAP. XXVII. OF RIGHTS AND CEREMONIES. — The ceremonial law
of the Jews was a schoolmaster and guardian to lead them to Christ,
the true Liberator, who abrogated it so that believers are no more un-
§ 55. THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION, 1566.
der the law, but under the gospel freedom. The Apostles would not
lay the burden of Jewish ceremonies on the new converts (Acts xv. 28).
The more of human rites are accumulated in the Church, the more it
is drawn away from Christian liberty and from Christ himself, while
the ignorant seek in ceremonies what they should seek in Christ
through faith. A few pure and moderate rites consistent with the
"Word of God are sufficient.
Difference in ceremonies, such as existed in the ancient Church, and
exists now among us, need not to interfere with union and harmony
in doctrine and faith. In things indifferent, which are neither good
nor evil, the Church has always used liberty (1 Cor. viii. 10 ; x. 27 sqq.).
CHAP. XXYIII. OF CHITBCH PBOPERTY. — The wealth of the Church
should be used for the maintenance of public worship and schools, the
support of ministers and teachers, and especially also for the benefit
of the poor. *
Misapplication and abuse of Church property through ignorance or
avarice is a sacrilege, and calls for reformation.
CHAP. XXIX. Or CELIBACY, MAI&RIAGE, AHB ECONOMY. — Those who
have the gift of celibacy from heaven, so as to be pure and continent
from their whole heart, may serve the Lord in that vocation in simplic-
ity and humility, without exalting themselves above others. If not,
they should remember the apostolic word : c It is better to marry than
to burn5 (1 Cor. vii. 9).
Marriage (the remedy for incontinence, and continence itself) was
instituted by God, who blessed it richly, and inseparably joined man
and woman to live together in intimate love and harmony (Matt. xix.
5). Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed is undefiled (Heb. xiii.
4; 1 Oor. vii. 28).
We condemn polygamy, and those who reject second marriages.
Marriage should be contracted in the fear of the Lord, with the con-
sent of parents or their representatives, and for the end for which it
was instituted.
Children should be brought up in the fear of the Lord, properly sup-
ported by their parents (1 Tim. v. 8), and be taught honest arts or
trades.
We condemn the doctrine which forbids marriage, or indirectly
slights it as unholy and unclean (1 Tim. iv, 1). We execrate unclean
4:20 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
celibacy, secret and open fornications, and the pretended continency of
hypocrites.
CHAP. XXX. OF THE MAGISTRATE. — The civil magistrate is ap-
pointed by (rod himself (Eom. xiii.) for the peace and tranquillity of
the human race. If opposed to the Church, he can do much harm ; if
friendly, he can do the Church most useful service.
The duty of the magistrate is to preserve peace and public order;
to promote and protect religion and good morals ; to govern the people
by righteous laws; to punish the offenders against society, such as
thieves, murderers, oppressors, blasphemers, and incorrigible heretics
(if they are really heretics).1
Wars are justifiable only in self-defense, and after all efforts at peace
have been exhausted.
We condemn the Anabaptists, who maintain that a Christian should
not hold a civil office, that the magistrate has no right to punish any
one by death, or to make war, or to demand an oath.
All citizens owe reverence and obedience to the magistrate as the
minister of God in all righteous commands, and even their lives when
the public safety and welfare require it. Therefore we condemn
the despisers of the magistrate, rebels and enemies of the common-
wealth, and all who openly or artfully refuse to perform their duties
as citizens.
We pray to God, our merciful heavenly Father, to bestow his bless-
ing upon princes and rulers, upon us, and upon all his people, through
Jesus Christ our only Lord and Saviour : to whom be praise, and glory,
and thanksgiving, forever and ever. Amen.
1 * Co&rceat et hcereticos (qui vere hasretid sunt) incorrigibiks, Dei majestatem blasphemare
et Ecclesiam Dei conturlare, adeoque perdere non desinentes.1 The same view of the right
and duty of the civil government to punish heretics is expressed in other Confessions. The
Reformers differed from the Roman Catholics, not so much in the principle of persecution as
in the definition of heresy and the degree of punishment. Nevertheless, the Reformation in-
augurated the era of religious toleration and freedom.
' § 56. JOHN CALVIN.
§ 56. JOHN CALVIN. His LIFE AND OHAEACTEB.
Literature.
I. WORKS ANT) CORRESPONDENCE OF CALVIN.
jOANNis CALVINI Opera, qua super sunt omnia, ed. <?. Baum, E. Cunitz, E. Reuss, fheologi Argentor*
tenses. Brunsvigse, 1863 sqq. (in the Corp. Reform.). So far (1884) 27 vols, 4to. The most complete and
most critical edition.
Older Latin ed., Geneva, 1617, in 12 vols. folio, and Amstelod. 1671, 9 vols. foL.
An English edition of Calvin's Works, by the 'Calvin Translation Society/ Edinburgh, 1842-1S53, in
52 vols.
Convenient editions of Calvin's Institutes, by Tholuck (Berol. 1S34 and 1846) ; the Commentaries on
Genesis, by Hengstenberg (Berol. 1838), on the Psalms (Berol. 1880-34), on the New Testament (except the
Apocalypse, 1833-38, in 7 vols.), by Tholuck.
His most important works were also written in French.
A German translation of his Institutes, by Fr. Ad. Krummacher (1834), of his Comment., by C. F. L. Mat-
thieu (1859 sqq.).
The extensive correspondence of Calvin was first edited in part by BEZA and JONVILLEUS (Calvin's sec-
retary), Genevse, 1575, and other editions ; by BBETSCHNEIDEB (the Gotha Letters), Lips. 1835 ; by A. CBOT-
TET, Geneve, 1850 ; then much more completely by JULES BONNET, Lettres Fran'.-aises, Paris, 1S54, 2 vols. ;
an English translation (from the French and Latin) by D. CONSTABLE and M. R. GILCHRIST, Edinburgh
and Philadelphia (Presbyt Board of Publ.), 1S55 sqq., in four vols. (the 4th with an index), giving the
letters in chronological order (till 1558). The last and best edition is by the Strasbarg Professors in
Calvini Opera, Vol. X. Part II. to Vol. XV., with ample Prolegomena on the previous editions of Calvin's
Letters and the manuscript sources.
Compare, also, A. L. HEUMINJARD : Correspondence des reformateurs dans les pays de tongue francatee,
(beginning with 1512). Geneve and Paris, 1866, sqq., 5th vol.1883. A most important work, with many new
letters from and to the Reformers, illustrated by historical and biographical notes ; the correspondence
of Calvin begins Tome II. p. 278.
IL BIOGRAPHIES OP CALVIN.
TH. I»E BEZE ; Histoire de la vie et la mort de J. Calvin, Geneve, 1564 ; second French ed. enlarged and
improved by Nio. COLLADON, 1565, recently republished by A. FRANKLIN, Paris, 1864; Latin ed. by Beza,
as an introduction to Calvin's Letters, 1575, reprinted in Tholuck's ed. of Calvin's Commentaries. There
are also German, English, and Italian translations. The second French and the Latin editions should
be consulted. This work of Beza, together with Calvin's Letters and Works, furnishes the chief mate-
rial for an authentic biography.
HIEEON. BOLSEO (a Carmelite monk, then physician at Geneva, expelled on account of Pelagian views
and opposition to Calvin, 1551, returned to the Roman Church 1563) : Histoire de la vie de Jean Calvin,
Paris, 1577 (Geneve, 1835) ; then in Latin : De J. Calvini magni quondam Genevensium ministri vita, mori-
~bus, rebus gestis, studiis ac denigue morte, Colonise, 1580. « A mean and slanderous libel,* inspired by feel-
ings of hatred and revenge. See Schweizer, Centraldogmen, Vol. I. p. 205.
JACQUES LE VASSEUK (R. C.) : Annales de I'eglise cathSdrale de Noyon, Paris, 1633. Contains some notices
on the youth of Calvin.
JACQUES DEBMAY (R. C.) : Remargues surlaviede J. Calvin heresiarque tirees des Registres de Nogon,
Rouen, 1657.
DRELINOOTTRT : La, defense de Calvin centre Voutragefait d sa memoir e, Geneve, 1667 ; in German, Hanau,
1671. A refutation of the slanders of Bolsec.
PAUL HENRY (pastor of a French Reformed Church in Berlin) : Das Leben Johann Calvins des grossen
Reformators, etc., Hamburg, 1835-44, 3 vols. ; also abridged in one vol., Hamburg, 1846. English trans-
lation by STEBBING, London and New York, 1854, in 2 vols. The large work is a valuable collection
rather than digestion of material for a full biography by a sincere admirer.
E. STAHELIN (Reformed minister at Basle) : Johannes Calvin; Leben und ausgewdKLte Sohrlften, Elber-
feld, 1863, 2 vols. (in Vdter und Begrunder der reform. Kirche, VoL IV. in two parts). Upon the whole
the best biography, though not as complete as Henry's, and in need of modification and additions from
more recent researches.
T. H. D YB* : I&e of Calvin, London, 1850. ' Valuable and impartial » (Fisher).
FELIX BTWGBNEB: Calvin, sa vie, son ceuvre et ses fartis, Paris, 1862 ; English translation, Edinb. 1868.
F. W. KAMPSOHULTB (a liberal Roman Catholic, Professor of History at Bonn, died an Old Catholic,
1871): Joh. Calvin, seine Kirche und sein, Staat in Genf, Leipzig, 1869, Vol. I. (Vols. II. and HI. have not
appeared). A most able, critical, and, for a Catholic, remarkably fan* and liberal work, drawn in part
from unpublished sources.
GUIZOT (the great historian and statesman, a descendant of the Huguenots, d. at Val Richer, Sept 12,
1874) : St. Louis and Calvin, London, 1868. Comp. also his sketch in the Musee des ^rotestants ceUbres.
The work of the Roman Catholic ATTDIN: Histoire de la vie, etc., de Calvin, Paris, 1841, 5th ed., 1851, in
2 vols. (also in English and German), is mostly a slanderous caricature, based upon Bolsec.
4:22 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
III. BlOGBAPHIOAL SKETCHES AND ESSAYS.
M. MIGNBT: Memoir e sur Vetdblissement de la reforme et sur la constitution du Calvinlsme a Genev^
Paris, 1834.
J. J. HBBZOG : Joh. Calvin, Basel, 1843 ; and in bis Real-Encykhp. Vol. n. p. 511.
E. RENAN: Jean Calvin, in Etudes d'histoire religieuse, 5th ed., Paris, 1862; English translation by
O. B. Frothingham (Studies of Religious History and Criticism, New York, 1864, pp. 285-297).
PHILIP SOHAPF : John Calvin, in the Bibliotheca Sacra, Andover, 1857, pp. 125-146.
HKNKY B. SMITH: John Caloin, in Appleton's American Cyclopaedia, New York, Vol. IV. (1S59) pp. 281-
288.
JAMBS ANTHONY FBOUDE:, Calvinism, an Address delivered to the Students of St. Andrew's, March 17, 1871
(in his Short Studies on Great Subjects, Second Scries, New York, 1873, pp. 9-53).
A. A. HOBGB (of Alleghany, son of Dr. Charles Hodge of Princeton) : Calvinism, in Johnson's Uni-
versal Cyclopaedia (New York, 1875 sqq.),Vol. I. pp. 727-734,
LYHAN H. ATWATEB: Calvinism in Doctrine and Life, in the Prestyt. Quarterly and Princeton Review,
New York, Jan. 1875, pp. 7&-106.
IV. HlSTOEIEB 07 THE REFORMATION IN GENEVA.
ABB. KUOHAT (Professor in Lausanne) : Histoire de la reformation de la Suisse, Geneve, 1727 sqq. 6 vols. ;
new edition, with appendices, by Prof. Vulliemin, Nyon, Giral. 1835-1838, 7 vols.
C. B. HUNDESHAGEW (Professor in Berue, afterwards in Bonn, d. 1872) : Die Conjlicte des Zwinglianismus,
Lutherthums und Calvinismus in tier Bernischen Landcskirche von 1532-1558. Nach meist ungedruckten
QueUen. Bern, 1842.
J. GABEREL (ancien pastenr) : Histoire de Veglise de Geneve depuis le commencement de la reforme
jusgu'en 1815. Geneve, 18S5-63, 3 vols.
P. CHABPENNE: Histoire de la reforme et des reformateiirs de Geneve. Paris, 1861.
AMAD. ROGET: Ueglise et Vetat d Geneve de vivant Calvin, 1867; and Histoire dupeuple de Geneve depuis
la reforme jusqu'd Vescalade. Gen&ve, 1870.
MBBLB »*AuBiGNi (Professor of Church History at Geneva, d. 1872) : History of the Reformation in
Europe in the time of Calvin (from the French). New York, 1863-1879, 8 vols. (the second division of
Ms general history of the Reformation. The last two volumes were edited from the author's MSS,
They carry the history down to the middle of the 16th century.
G. P. FISHER : The Reformation. New York, 1873, Ch. VII. pp. 192-241.
For the political history of Geneva preceding and during the time of Calvin are to be compared
FR. BONJNIVABD : Les Chroniques de Geneve, edited by Dunant (Gen. 1831, 4 vols.) ; GALIFPE : Matfriaux
pour Vhistoire de Geneve; J. P. B&JENGEB: Histoire de Geneve jusqu'en 1761 (1772, 6 vols.) ; and the Me-
moires et documents publics par la Societe d'histoire et d'archeologie de Geneve (1840 sqq.).
CALVIN'S LIFE.
After the death of Zwingli and the treaty of Cappel (1531), the
progress of the Eeformation was checked in German Switzerland, but
only to make a more important conquest in French Switzerland, and
from thence with the course of empire to move westward to France,
Holland, beyond the Channel, and beyond the seas.
The supremacy passed from Zurich to Geneva. Providence had
silently prepared the person and the place. The 'little corner3 on the
borders of Switzerland and France, known since the days of Julius
Caesar, was predestinated, by its location and preceding history, for a
great international mission, and has nobly fulfilled it, not only in the
period of the Eeformation of the Church, but also in the nineteenth
century on the field of international law and peaceful arbitration.
After varying fortunes, Geneva became an independent asylum of
civil and religious freedom, and furnished the best base of operation
§ 56. JOHN CALVIN. 423
for John Calvin, who, though a Frenchman by birth and a Swiss by adop-
tion,was a cosmopolitan in spirit, and acted as the connecting link between
the Germanic and Latin races in the work of reform. Farel, Viret, and
Froment had destroyed the power of Popery, but to Calvin was left the
more difficult task of reconstruction and permanent organization.
John Calvin,1 the greatest theologian and disciplinarian of the giant
race of the Reformers, and for commanding intellect, lofty charac-
ter, and far-reaching influence one of the foremost leaders in the
history of Christianity, was born at Noyon, in Picardy, July 10, 1509.
His father, Gerard Chauvin, a man of severe morals, was secretary to
the Bishop of Noyon ; his mother, a beautiful and devout, but otherwise
not remarkable woman. He received his first training with the chil-
dren of a noble family (de Mommor), to which he was gratefully at-
tached. His ambitious father destined him for the clerical profession,
and secured him even in his twelfth year the benefice of a chaplaincy
of the cathedral — an abuse not infrequent in those days of decay of
ecclesiastical discipline. He received the tonsure, but not the ordina-
tion for the priesthood ; while Zwingli and Knox were once priests, and
Luther both priest and doctor, in the Church they were called to re-
form. His elder brother, Charles, became a priest at Noyon, and died
a libertine and an infidel in the same year in which John proclaimed
his faith to the world (1536) — as if to repeat the startling contrast of
Esau and Jacob, reprobation and election, from the same womb,2
Another remarkable coincidence is the fact that the Reformer studied
scholastic philosophy under the same Spanish instructor of the College
de Montaigu at Paris in which a few years afterwards Ignatius Loyola,
1 The Latinized form of the French Chauvin or Cauvin. He sunk, even in name, his nation-
ality in his catholicity.
2 Guizot (pp. 153, 155) : * Evidently Charles Calvin lived and died a dissolute man and an
unbeliever, and at the same time remained chaplain of the Catholic church of his native town.
The sixteenth century abounds in similar instances. . . . The same thing was going on every
where ; unbelievers and fervent Christians, libertines and men of the most austere lives, were
springing up and living side by side. Two contrary winds were blowing over Europe at that
period, one carrying with it skepticism and licentiousness, while the other breathed only Chris-
tian faith and the severest morality. One of these arose chiefly from the revival of the ancient
literature and philosophy of Greece and Rome ; the other sprang from the struggles made in
the Church itself, and in its councils, to arrive at a reform which was at the same time greatly
desired and fiercely opposed. ... It was, in short, the age which produced Erasmus and Lu-
ther in Germany, and Montaigne and Calvin in France. ' Merle d'Aubigne* (Vol. V. p. 455)
conjectures that Charles Calvin became a convert to Protestantism on his death-bed, for
which the infuriated priests had him buried by night between the four pillars of a gibbefc.
I— E HJ
424 THE CfcEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
the famous founder of Jesuitism — the very opposite pole of Calvinism
— laid the foundation of his counter-reformation.1
Calvin received the best education which France could afford, in the
Universities of Orleans, Bourges, and Paris, first for the priesthood,
then, at the request of his father, for the law.2 He early distinguished
himself by excessive industry, which undermined his constitution, se-
vere self -discipline, and a certain censoriousness, for which he was called
by his fellow-students ' the Accusative Case.' 3 He made rapid prog-
ress. Even as a student of nineteen he was often called to the chair
of an absent professor, so that (as Beza says) lie was considered a doc-
tor rather than an auditor. When he left the university he was the
most promising literary man of the age. He might have attained the
highest position in France, had not his religious convictions undergone
a radical change.
Protestant ideas were then pervading the atmosphere and agitating
the educated classes of France even at the court, which was divided
on the question of religion. Two of Calvin's teachers, Cordier (or
Corderius, who afterwards followed him to Geneva) and "Wolmar,
were friendly to reform, and one of his relatives, Oliv&an, became
soon afterwards (1534) the first Protestant translator of the Bible into
French. He seems, however, to have exerted as much influence on
them as they exerted on him.4
His first work was a commentary on Seneca's book on Mercy , which
he published at his own expense, April, 1532.5 It moves in the circle
1 Kampschulte, Vol. I. p. 223.
2 It seems (according to Jacques Le Vasseur, 1. c. 1153 sqq., as quoted by Kampschulte,
Vol. I. p. 226) that Gerard Chauvin became involved in difficulty with his ecclesiastical su-
periors, and was even excommunicated. Kampschulte conjectures that this was probably the
reason why he ordered his son to exchange the study of theology for that of law. But Cal-
vin himself (in his Commentary on the Psalms) assigns a different motive : * Mon pere m'avoit
destine" a la ThGologie ; mais puis apres, d'autant gdil conside'roit que la science des Lois:
commun€ment enrichit ceux gui la suyvent, ceste espfaance luyfcdt incontinent changer d'avis.'
The study of the law was of great use to Calvin in the organization and control of Church
and State in Geneva.
3 A notice of Jacques Le Vasseur, which agrees with Beza's statement that he was 'tenera
estate mirum in modum religiosus1 and 'severus omnium in suis sodalibus vitiorum censor.'
* According to Beza and Stahelin (Vol. I. p. 88), Calvin took part even in the first edition
of Olive'tan's French New Testament (1534). But this seems to be an error; see Beuss,
Revw de Theologie, 1 866, No. III. p. 3 1 8, and Kampschulte, p. 247. He revised, however, the
second edition, which included the Old Testament (1535), and wrote the preface (see St'ahelin,
pp.89sq.).
* ' L. Annei Se- \ necce, Romani Senate- \ ro, ac phiksophi clarissi- \ mi, libri duo de Cle*
§ 56. JOHN CALVIN. 425
of classical philology and moral philosophy, and reveals a character-
istic love for the nobler type of Stoicism, great familiarity with Greek
and Roman literature, masterly Latinity, rare exegetical skill, clear
and sound judgment, and a keen insight into the evils of despotism
and the defects of the courts of justice, but makes no allusion to
Christianity. Hence it is quite improbable that it was an indirect
plea for toleration and clemency intended to operate on the King of
France in dealing with his Protestant subjects.1 His earliest letters,
from 1530 to 1532, are likewise silent on religious subjects, and re-
fer to humanistic studies, and matters of friendship and business.2
His conversion to the cause of the Reformation seems to have taken
place in the latter part of 1532, about one year after the death of
Zwingli.3 The precise date and circumstances are unknown. It was,
mentia^ ad Ne- \ ronem Ccpsarem: \ Joannis Calvini Norioduncei commentariis illustrati.}
Parisiis . . . 1532.' Reprinted from the ed. princeps in the new edition of the Opera, Vol. V.
(1866), pp. 6-162. The commentary is preceded by a dedicatory epistle, and a sketch of the
life of Seneca.
1 As is asserted by Henry, Herzog, Dorner (p. 375), and also by Guizot (p. 16 2), but justly
denied by Stahelin (Vol. I. pp. 14 sqq.) and Kampschulte (p. 238). The work is not dedi-
cated to Francis L, but to Claude de Hangest, the Abbot of St. Eloy (Eligius), afterwards
Bishop of Noyon, his former schoolmate ; and the implied comparison of the French king
with Nero, and the incidental mention of the Neronian persecution (* quum Nero diris suppli-
ciis tmpotenter sceviret in Christianas, Opera, Vol. V. p. 10), would have been fatal to such an
apologetic aim. Calvin sent a copy to Erasmus, and called him c the honor and the chief
delight of the world of letters' — literarum alterum decus ac primes delidce (see his letter to
Claude de Hangest, April 4, 1532, in Herminjard, Tom. II. p. 411).
8 They were recently brought to light by Jules Bonnet and Herminjard. They are chiefly
addressed to his fellow-student, Francis Daniel, an advocate of Orleans, who acknowledged
the necessity of the Reformation, but remained in the Church of Rome. See the Edinburgh
edition of Calvin's Letters, by Bonnet, Vol. I. p. 3 ; Herminjard, Vol. II. pp. 278 sqq. ; and
Opera, Vol. X. Pt. II. pp. 3 sqq. His first letter to Daniel is dated * Mel Hani (i. e. Meillant,
south of Bourges, not Meaux, as the Edinburgh edition misunderstands it), 8 Id us Septembr.,'
and is put by Herminjard and the Strasburg editors in the year 1530 (not 1529).
3 Stahelin puts his conversion in the year 1533 (Vol. I. p. 21). But we have a familiar let-
ter from Calvin to Martin Bucer, dated Noyon, 'pridie nonas SeptembresS probably of the
year 1532, in which he recommends a French refugee, falsely accused of holding the opinions
Df the Anabaptists, and says : ' I entreat of you, Master Bucer, if my prayers, if my tears are
of any avail, that you would compassionate and help him in his wretchedness. The poor is
Jeft in a special manner to your care — you are the helper of the orphan. , . . Most learned
Sir, farewell; Thine from my heart (Tuus ex animo): Calvin* (J. Bonnet's Letters, VoL I.
pp. 9-11 ; the Latin in Opera, VoL X. Pt. II. p. 24). Kampschulte (Vol. I. p. 231) infers even
an earlier acquaintance of Calvin with Bucer, from a letter of Bucer to Farel, May 1, 1528,
in which he mentions a juvenis Noviodunensis studying Greek and Hebrew in Strasburg
(Herminjard, Vol. II. p. 131, and Opera, Vol. X. Pt. II. p. 1) ; but this youth was probably
his relative Olivetan, who was likewise a native of Noyon (Herminjard, Vol. II. p. 451 ). Be-
sides, there were several places in France of the name Noviodunum. In a letter of Oct.,
426 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM,
as he himself characterizes it, a sudden change (sutita conversio)
from Papal superstition to the evangelical faith, yet not without pre-
vious struggles. He tenaciously adhered to the Catholic Church until
he was able to disconnect the true idea and invisible essence of the
Church from its outward organization. Like Luther, he strove in vain
to attain peace of conscience by the methods of Komanism, and was
driven to a deeper sense of sin and guilt. ' Only one haven of salva-
tion is left for our souls,' he says, c and that is the mercy of God in
Christ. We are saved by grace — not by our merits, not by our works.'
After deep and earnest study of the Scriptures, the knowledge of the
truth, like a bright light from heaven, burst upon his mind with such
force that there was nothing left for him but to abjure his sins and
errors, and to obey the will of God. He consulted not with flesh and
blood, and burned the bridge after him.1
There never was a change of conviction purer in motive, more rad-
ical in character, more fruitful and permanent in result. It bears a
striking resemblance to that still greater event near Damascus, which
transformed a fanatical Pharisee into an apostle of Jesus Christ. And
indeed Calvin was not unlike St. Paul in his intellectual and moral
constitution ; and the apostle of sovereign grace and evangelical free-
dom never had a more sympathetic expounder than the Eeformer of
Geneva.
With this step Calvin renounced all prospects of a brilliant career,
upon which he had already entered, and exposed himself to the danger
of persecution and death.2 Though naturally bashful and retiring,
and seeking one quiet hiding-place after another, he was forced to
come forward. He exhorted and strengthened the timid believers,
usually closing with the words of St. Paul : * If God be for us, who can
1533, to Francis Daniel (Bonnet, Vol. I p. 12, and Opera, VoL X. Pt II. p. 27), Calvin first
speaks openly of the Reformation in Paris, the rage of the Sorbonne, and the satirical comedy
against the Queen of Navarre.
1 He alludes to his conversion only twice, and briefly, namely, in the remarkable Preface to
his Commentary on the Psalms, and in his answer to Cardinal Sadolet (Opera, Vol. V.
pp. 389-411 sq.)- In the latter he describes bis mental conflicts and terrors of conscience.
* He says (Ad Sadoleti Epistolam, Opera^ Vol. V. p. 389) that if he had consulted his per-
sonal interest he would never have left the Roman Church, where the way to honor would
have been very easy to him. Audin, in- tracing Calvin's conversion to wounded ambition,
exposes (as Kampschulte justly observes, p. 242) his utter ignorance of Calvin's character,
ftv&ose only ambition was to serve God most faithfully.
§ 56. JOHN CALVIN. 427
be against us?5 There is no evidence that he ever was ordained by
human hands to the ministry of the gospel; but he had an extraor-
dinary call, like that of the prophets of old, and the Apostle of the
Gentiles. This was felt by his brethren, and about a year after his
conversion he was the acknowledged leader of the Protestant party
in France.
For a while matters seemed to take a favorable turn at the court.
His friend, Nicholas Cop, a learned physician, was even elected Rector
of the University of Paris.1 At his request Calvin prepared for him
an inaugural address on Christian philosophy, which Cop delivered on
All-Saints' Day, in 1533, in the Church of the Mathurins, before a
large assembly. He embraced this public occasion to advocate the
reform of the Church on the basis of the pure gospel.2 Such a prov-
ocation Catholic France had never before received. The Sorbonne
ordered the address to be burned. Cop was warned, and fled to
Basle; Calvin — as tradition says — escaped in a basket from a win-
dow, and left Paris in the garb of a vine-dresser, scarcely knowing
whither he was going. A few months afterwards the king himself
took a decided stand against the Reformation, and between Nov. 10,
1534, and May 3, 1535, twenty-four Protestants were burned alive in
Paris, while many more were condemned to less cruel sufferings.3
For more than two years Calvin wandered a fugitive evangelist,
under assumed names, from place to place. We find him at Angou-
16me with his learned friend, the young canon Louis du Tillet, using
his excellent library, and probably preparing his ' Institutes ;J then at
the court of Queen Margaret of Navarre, the sister of Francis I.,
where he met Le F6vre d'Estaples (Faber Stapulensis), the aged patri-
arch of French Protestantism, and Gerard Roussel, her chaplain, who
1 Bulseus, Historia universitatis Poraiensu, VoL VI. p. 238; Kampschulte, Vol. L p. 243.
8 The incomplete draft of this address has recently been discovered by J. Bonnet among
the manuscripts of the Geneva library. In it Calvin explains the great difference between
the law and the gospel, and charged the Sophists, as he called the scholastic theologians,
^Nihil de fide, nihil de amore Dei, nihil de remissione peccatorum, nihil de gratia, nihil de
justification^ nihil de veris operibus disserunt ; out si certe disserunt, omnia calumniantur,
omnia Zabefactant, omnia siris legibus, hoc est sophisticis coSrcent. Vos rogo, quotguot hie
adestis, ut has hcereses, has in Deum contumelias numquam cequo animo feratis.' See Kamp-
schulte, p. 244.
3 This is recorded with some satisfaction by a Catholic writer in the Journal du Bourgeai*
de Paris, quoted by Guizot, p. 168. That Francis I. was present at these horrible execu-
tions is denied by Michelet, Martin, and Guizot.
4:28 THE CEEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
advised Mm <to purify the house of God, but not to destroy it;' at
Noyon (May, 1534), where he parted with his ecclesiastical benefices;
at Poictiers, where he celebrated, with a few friends, for the first time,
the Lord's Supper according to the evangelical rite, in a cave near the
town, called to this day i Calvin's Cave ;' at Orleans, where he published
his first theological work, a tract against the Anabaptist doctrine of
the sleep of the soul between death and the resurrection, using exclu-
sively Scriptural arguments with rare exegetical and polemical skill;1
again (towards the close of 1534) at Paris, where he met for the first
time the unfortunate Michael Servetus, and challenged him to a dis-
putation on the Trinity. But the persecution then breaking out against
the Protestants forced him to forsake the soil of France. With his
friend Du Tillet he fled to Strasburg, where he arrived utterly desti-
tute, having been robbed by an unfaithful servant, and formed an in-
timate friendship with Bucer. Thence he went to Basle, where he
quietly studied Hebrew with Capito and G-rynseus, and published the
first edition of his 'Institutes' (1536). In the spring of 1536 he spent
a short time at the court of the Duchess Een^e of Ferrara, the daughter
of Louis XII., a little, deformed, but highly intelligent, noble, and pious
lady, who gathered around her a circle of friends of the Reformation,
and continued to correspond with him as her guide of conscience.2
Eeturning from Italy, where he was threatened by the Inquisition,3 he
paid a flying visit to Noyon, and had the pleasure to gain his only
remaining younger brother Anthony and his sister Mary to the Re-
1 Psycliopannychia, in Opera, Vol. V. pp. 165-232. The Preface is dated * Aurfiliae, 1534.'
The second edition appeared in Basle, 1535. This work forms a contrast to his commentary
on Seneca as great as exists between the classics and the Bible. In matters relating to the
future world, Calvin allows no weight to reason and phiteopby, but only to the Word of God.
On the merits of this book, see Stahelin, Vol. I. pp. 36 sqq.
8 Guizot, speaking at some length of this correspondence, makes the remark (p. 207) : * I
do not hesitate to affirm that the great Catholic bishops, who in the seventeenth century di-
rected the consciences of the mightiest men in France, did not fulfill the difficult task with
more Christian firmness, intelligent justice, and knowledge of the world than Calvin displayed
in his intercourse with the Duchess of Ferrara. And the Duchess was not the only person
towards whom he fulfilled this duty of a Christian pastor. His correspondence shows that
he exercised a similar influence, in a spirit equally lofty and judicious, over the consciences
of many Protestants. '
3 He took the route of Aosta and the Great St. Bernard. His short labors and persecu-
tion in Aosta were, five years later (1541), commemorated by a monumental cross and in-
scription— * Cahinifuga?— which was restored in 1741, and again in 1841, and stands to this
day. See Gaberel, Vol. I. p. 100 ; SiaheUn, Vol.I. p.110; Guizot, p. 209; and Merle d'Au-
bigne*, Vol. V. p. 454.
§ 56. JOHN CALVIN. 429
formed faith. With them he proceeded to Switzerland, intending to
settle at Basle or Strasburg, and to lead the quiet life of a scholar and
an author, withoiit the slightest inclination to a public career. But God
had decreed otherwise.
Passing through Geneva in August, 1536, where he expected to
spend only a night, Calvin was held fast by William Farel, the fear-
less evangelist, who threatened him with the curse of God if he pre-
ferred his studies to the work of the Lord. c These words,' says
Calvin (in the Preface to his Commentary on the Psalms), c terrified
and shook me, as if God from on high had stretched out his hand to
stop me, so that I renounced the journey which I had undertaken.' l
Farel, a French nobleman, twenty years older than Calvin, and like
him driven by persecution to Switzerland, where he destroyed the
strongholds of idolatry with the zeal of a prophet, did a great work
when che gave Geneva to the Reformation,' but a still greater one
when 'he gave Calvin to Geneva.'
This was the turning-point in Calvin's life. Once resolved to obey
the voice from heaven, the timid and delicate youth shrunk from no
danger. Geneva was then a city of only twelve or fifteen thousand
inhabitants, but within its narrow limits it was to become c the scene
of every crisis and every problem, great or small, which can agitate
human society.'2 It then represented ' a tottering republic, a wavering
faith, a nascent Church.' Calvin felt that a negative state of free-
dom from the tyranny of Savoy and Popery was far worse than Popery
itself, and that positive faith and order alone could save the city from
political and religious anarchy. He insisted on the abolition of im-
moral habits, the adoption of an evangelical confession of faith and
catechism, the introduction of a strict discipline, Psalm singing, and
monthly celebration of the Lord's Supper, with the right of excluding
unworthy communicants.3
1 According to Beza (Vita), Farel used these words : 'At ego tibi studia pratexenti denim-
tio, omnipotentis Dei nomine, futurism, ut, nisi in opus istud Domini nobiscum incumbas, tibi
non tarn Christum guam te ipsum qucerenti Dominus maledicat.' Beza adds that Calvin was
« territus hac terribili denuntiatione.' Merle d'Aubigne gives a very dramatic account of this
scene, Vol. V. pp. 456 sqq.
* Guizot, p. 210.
3 Mfmoire de Calvin et Farel $ur I 'organisation de Ttglise de Geneve, recently brought to
light by Gaherel (Hist, de fealise de Geneve, 1858, Tom. I. p. 102), and in the Strasburg
430 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
The magistrate refused to comply, and forbade Calvin and Farel
the pulpit; but they, preferring to obey God rather than men,
preached at Easter, 1538, to an armed crowd, and declared their de-
termination not to administer the holy communion, lest it be dese-
crated. On the following day they were deposed and expelled from
the city by the great Council of the Two Hundred.
Calvin, again an exile, though now for the principle of authority
and discipline rather than doctrine, spent three quiet and fruitful
years (1538-41) with Bucer at Strasburg, as teacher of theology and
preacher to a congregation of several hundred French refugees.1 Here
he became acquainted with the German Keformation, for Strasburg
was the connecting link between Germany and France, as also be-
tween Lutheranism and Zwinglianism, But he was disagreeably im-
pressed with the want of Church discipline, and the slavish dependence
of the German clergy on the secular rulers. His French congregation
was admired for its activity and order. In Strasburg he wrote his tract
on the Lord's Supper, his Commentary on the Romans, his masterly
answer to Cardinal Sadolet's letter to the Genevese, and his revision
of Olivetan's French translation of the Bible. Some of these books
attracted the favorable notice of Luther, whom he never met in this
world, but always esteemed, with a full knowledge of his faults, as one
of the greatest servants of Christ2
In September, 1540, he married Idelette de Bure (a little town
in Gueldres), a grave, pious, modest, amiable, and cultivated widow,
with, three children, whose first husband he had converted from
edition of the Opera, Vol. X. Pt. I. pp. 5-1 4. See a summary in Kampschulte, Vol. I.
pp. 287 sqq.
1 Guizot says fifteen hundred. On Calvin's life and lahors in Strasburg, see especially the
full accounts of Stahelin, Vol. I. pp. 168-318, and Kampschulte, Vol. I. pp. 320-368.
* Luther wrote to Bucer: * Greet Calvin, whose little works I have read with remarkable
pleasure ;7 and Melanchthon wrote : * Calvin is in high favor here (inagnam gratictm iniit), ' See
Calvin to Tarel, Dec. 12, 1539 ; Stahelin, Vol. I. p. 226 ; and De Wette's edition of Luther's
Letters, Vol. V. p. 210. Calvin wrote to Bullinger, when the latter was provoked by the last
rude assault of Luther upon the Zwinglians (1544) : * I implore you never to forget how great
a man Luther is, and by what extraordinary gifts he excels. Think with what courage, what
constancy, what power and success he has devoted himself to this day to the overthrow of the
reign of Antichrist and the spreading of the doctrine of salvation far and near. As for me,
I have often said, and I say it again, though he should call me a devil, I would still give him
due honor, and recognize him, in spite of the great faults which obscure his extraordinary vir-
tues, as a mighty servant of the Lord. ' See Henry, Vol. II. p. 351 ; Stahelin, Vol. L p. 204 ?
Guizot, p. 243 ; Qpera, Vol. XI. T>. 774.
§ 56. JOHN CALVIN. 431
Anabaptism to the orthodox faith. She was in delicate health, but
very devoted to him, and satisfied all his desires. He lived with
her in perfect harmony nine years, and she bore him one child, a
son who died in infancy. He seldom alludes to her in his corre-
spondence, but always in terms of respect and love; and in inform-
ing his friend Viret of her departure, he calls her ' the best compan-
ion, who would cheerfully have shared with me exile and poverty,
and followed me unto death; during her life she was to me a faith-
ful assistant in all my labors; she never dissented from my wishes
even in the smallest things.' Seven years afterwards, in a letter of
consolation to a friend (Eev. Richard de Valeville, of Frankfort), he
says: 'I know from my own experience how painful and burning
is the wound which the death of thy wife must have inflicted upon
you. How difficult it was for me to become master of my grief.
. . . Our chief comfort, after all, is the wonderful providence of
God, which overrules our affliction for our spiritual benefit, and sep-
arates us from our beloved only to reunite us in his heavenly king-
dom.' His grief at her death, and at the death of his child, reveals
a hidden spring of domestic affection which is rare in men of his aus-
terity of character and absorption in public duty. He remained a
widower the rest of his life.1
From the Strasburg period dates also his intimate friendship with
Melanchthon, which was not broken by death, and is the more remark-
able in view of their difference of opinion on the subject of predesti-
nation and free-will. He met him at religious conferences with Ro-
manists, at Frankfort (1539), at Worms (1540), and at Regensburg
(Ratisbon, 1541), which he attended as delegate from Strasburg.
Their correspondence is a noble testimony to the mind and heart of
these great men, so widely different in nationality, constitution, and
temper — the one as firm as a rock, the other as timid as a child — and
yet one in their deepest relations to Christ and his salvation. They
represent the higher union of the Lutheran and Reformed, the Teu-
tonic and the Romanic types of Protestantism. This truly Christian
friendship was touchingly expressed by Calvin a year after the death
1 Comp. the beautiful tribute to Idelette de Buren, by Jules Bonnet, in the fourth volumt
of the Bulletin pour fhistoire du protestantimefran^ais (1860), and Stahelin, VoL I. pp. 274-
283.
4:32 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
of the Preceptor of Germany (1561): 'O Philip Melanchthon! for it
is upon thee that I call, upon thee, who now livest with Christ in God,
and art there waiting for us, until we shall also be gathered with thee
to that blessed rest! A hundred times, worn out with fatigue and
overwhelmed with care, thou didst lay thy head upon my breast, and
say, "Would to God that I might die here, on thy breast!" And I,
a thousand times since then, have earnestly desired that it had been
grafted us to be together. Certainly thou wouldst have been more
valiant to face danger, and stronger to despise hatred, arid bolder to
disregard false accusations. Thus the wickedness of many would
have been restrained, whose audacity of insult was increased by what
they called thy weakness.' l
6 It would be difficult,' says Guizot, c to reconcile truth, piety, and
friendship more tenderly.'
.In the mean time the Genevese had been brought by sad experience
to repent of the expulsion of the faithful pastors, and to feel that the
Reformed faith and discipline alone could put their commonwealth
on a firm and enduring foundation. The magistrate and people united
in an urgent and repeated recall of Calvin. He reluctantly yielded at
last, and in September, 154:1, after passing a few days with Farel at
Neufchatel, he made a triumphant entry into the beautiful city on
Lake Leman.2 The magistracy provided for him a house and garden
near the Cathedral of St. Pierre, broadcloth for a coat, and, in con-
sideration of his generous hospitality to strangers and refugees, an an-
nual salary of five hundred florins,3 twelve measures of wheat, and two
1 This passage occurs on the first page of his hook against the fanatical Lutheran,
Heshusius (Opera, Vol. IX. p. 461): *0 Philippe Melanchthon ! Te enim appello, qui apud
Deum cum Christo vivis, nosque illic expect as, donee tecum in I eat am quietem colligamur.
Dixisti centies, quumfessus laborious ei molestiis oppressus caput familiariter in sinum meum
deponeres : Utinam, utinarn moriar in hoc sinu. Ego vero millies posted optavi nobis con-
tingere, ut simul ess emus. Certe ammosior fuisses ad obeunda certamina, et ad spernen-
dam invidicnn, falsasque criminationes pro nihilo ducendas fortior. Hoc quogue modo co-
hibita fuisset mtdtorum itnprobitasj quibus ex tua mottitie, guam vocabant, crevit insuhandi
avdacia.' Comp. on the relation of Calvin to Melanchthon, the toll discussion of Stahelin,
Vol. I. pp. 230-254 ; also Gnizot, p. 246.
9 The date is variously given — Sept. 10 by Boget, Sept. 12 by Guizot, Sept. 13 by Kamp-
achulte (following Beza).
* 'Worth about 3600 francs, or £150 at the present time.' — Guizot, p. 257. A syndic re-
ceived only one fifth of this sum; but Calvin*s house was a home for poor refugees of faith
from France and other lands, the widows and orphans of martyrs, so that he had often not
a j>enny left. See Stahelin, Vol. II. p. 391, and Hagenbach, Kirchengesch. Vol. III. _p. 581,
§ 56. JOHN CALVIN.
tabs of wine. The rulers of Strasburg, says Beza, stipulated that he
should always remain a burgess of their city, and requested him to
retain the revenues of a prebend which had been assigned as the sal-
ary of his professorship in theology, but they could not persuade
him to accept so much as a single farthing.
This second settlement was final. Geneva was now wedded to
Calvin, and had to sink or swim with his principles.1 He continued
to labor there, without interruption, for twenty-three years, till his
death, May 27, 1564: fighting a fierce spiritual war against Roman-
ism and superstition, but still more against infidelity and immorality ;
establishing a model theocracy on the basis of Moses and Christ;
preaching and teaching from day to day ; writing commentaries, the-
ological and polemical treatises ; founding an academy, which in the
first year attracted more than eight hundred students, and flourishes
to this day ; attending the sessions of the consistory and the senate ;
entertaining and counselling strangers from all parts of the world;
and corresponding in every direction. He was, in fact, the spiritual
head of the Church and the republic of Geneva, and the leader of the
Reformed movement throughout Europe. And yet he lived all the
time in the utmost simplicity. It is reported that Cardinal Sadolet,
when passing through Geneva incognito, and calling on Calvin, was
surprised to find him residing, not in an episcopal palace, with a reti-
nue of servants, as he expected, but in a little house, himself opening
the door. The story may not be suflSciently authenticated, but it cor-
responds fully with all we know about his ascetic habits.2 For years
1 Well says Kampschulte (Vol. I. pp. 385 sq.) : e Genf war imHerbst 1541 den geistlichen
Tendenzen Calvins dienstbar geworden, es war an den Siegeswagen des Reformators gefesselt
und musste ihm folgen trotz alles Straubens, trotz alter Auflehnungsversuche^ die s}>ater nicht
ausgeblieben sind. Nicht andersfasste Calvin selbst seine Stellung von vorne herein auf. Fur
ihn ergab sick sein Herrscherrecht fiber Genf aus dem wunderbaren Gauge der letzten Etreig-
nisse mit der Zweifellosigkeit eines von Gott selbst erklarten Glaubenssatzes. Schimpjlich
vor drei Jahren vertrieben, sah er sich mit den grossten Ehren auf den Schauplatz zuruckge-
fuhrt, den ihm Farel einst in ernster Stunde "im Namen des allmarhtigen Gottes" angewie-
sen : mit Jubel wurde er von. demselben Volke begrusstt das ihm unversohnlichen Hass ge&chwo-
ren / . . . Calvin juhlte sich fast nur noch ah Werkzeug in der Hand Gottes, durch den ettrigen
gottlichen Rathschluss, ohnejedespersdnliche Zuthun,ftr Genf bestimmt, urn des Herrn Willen,
wie er ihn erkannt, auf diesem wichtigen Fleck der JErde ohne Furcht und Scheu zu verkundi-
gen, jenes Programm, welches er in der christlichen Institution niedergekgt, hier zur Ausfuh*
rung zu bringen, dem Herrn hier ein christUches Geschkcht zu sammeln, das der ubrigen Welt
als Leuchte diene.'
8 This fact is related by Drelincourt in his Defense de Calvin (1667), and Bungener (p.
434: THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
he took but one meal a day.1 He refused an increase of salary and
presents of every description, except for the poor and the refugees,
whom he was always ready to aid. He left, besides his libraiy, only
about two hundred dollars, which he bequeathed to his younger brother
Anthony and his children.2 When Pope Pius IV. heard of his death,
he paid him this high compliment : c The strength of that heretic con-
sisted in this, that money never had the slightest charm for him. If I
had such servants, my dominions would extend from sea to sea.51
His immense labors and midnight studies,4 the care of all the
churches, and bodily infirmities — such as headaches, asthma, fever,
gravel — gradually wore out his delicate body. He died, in full pos-
session of his mental powers, in the prime of manhood and useful-
ness, not quite fifty-five years of age, leaving his Church in the best
order and in the hands of an able and faithful successor, Theodore
Beza. Like a patriarch, he assembled first the syndics of Geneva,
and afterwards the ministers, around his dying bed, thanked them
for their kindness and devotion, asked humbly their pardon for occa-
sional outbursts of violence and wrath, and affected them to tears by
words of wisdom and counsel to persevere in the pure doctrine and
discipline of Christ. It was a sublime scene, worthily described by
Beza,5 and well represented by a painter's skill.6
The Reformer died with the setting sun. ' Thus,5 says Beza, c God
withdrew into heaven that most brilliant light, which was a lamp of
the Church. In the following night and day there was immense grief
and lamentation in the whole city ; for the republic had lost its wisest
citizen, the Church its faithful shepherd, the academy an incompara-
ble teacher — all lamented the departure of their common father and
503), and is believed in Geneva, but doubted by Guizot, p. 237, for chronological reasons
which are not conclnsive (Sadolet died 1549). {Se non e vero, e ben trovato.'
1 Beza: 'Per decem minimum annos prandio dbstinuit, ut nuUum omnino dbum extra sta-
tam ccence toram swneret.' Sometimes he abstained for thirty-six hours from all food.
a See his testament in Beza's Vita.
3 Quoted by Guizot, p. 361.
4 'Somnipene nuttius^ says Beza in his closing remarks.
* With Beza's account of his parting addresses (in the French and Latin edition of the
Vita) should be compared the official copy, which Bonnet published in the Appendix to the
French Letters, Tom. II. p. 573, and the Strasburg editors at the close of the 9th vol. of the
Opera (Discours d? adieu aux membres du Petit Conseil, pp. 887-890, and Discours d* adieu aux
yrinistres, pp. 891-894). Comp. also Stahelin, Vol. H. pp. 462-468.
* Hornung's picture of Calvin on his death-bed.
§ 56. JOHN CALVIN. 435
best comforter next to God. A multitude of citizens streamed to
the death-chamber, and could scarcely be separated from the corpse.
Among them also were several foreigners, as the distinguished English
embassador to France, who had come to Geneva to make the ac-
quaintance of the celebrated man. On the Lord's day, in the after-
noon, the remains were carried to the common graveyard on Plain-
palnis, followed by all the patricians, pastors, professors, and teachers,
and nearly the whole city, in sincere mourning.'
Oalviii expressly forbade the erection of any monument over his
grave.1 The stranger asks in vain even for the spot which covers his
mortal remains in the cemetery of Geneva. Like Moses, he was buried
out of the reach of idolatry. The Reformed Churches of both hemi-
spheres are his monument, more enduring than marble. On the third
centenary of his death (1864), his friends in Geneva, aided by gifts
from foreign lands, erected to his memory the Salle de la Reforma-
tion— a noble building, founded on the principles of the Evangelical
Alliance, and dedicated to the preaching of the pure gospel and the
advocacy of every good cause.
CALVIN'S PERSONAL CHARACTER.
Calvin was of middle, or rather small stature (like David and Paul),
of feeble health, courteous, kind, grave and dignified in deportment
He had a meagre and emaciated frame, a thin, pale, finely chiseled
face, a well-formed mouth, a long, pointed beard, black hair, a promi-
nent nose, a lofty forehead, and flaming eyes. He was modest, plain,
and scrupulously neat in dress, orderly and methodical in all his hab-
its, temperate and even abstemious, allowing himself scarcely nourish-
ment and sleep enough for vigorous work. His physical tent barely
covered the mighty spirit within. Conscience and logic, a command-
ing mind and will, shone through the thin veil of mortality.2
1 Beza, however, wrote a suitable poem, in Latin and French, which might have heen in-
scribed on the tomb. See his Vita, at the close, and Opera, Vol. V. pp. xxvi. sqq. (with
three other French sonnets) ; a German translation in Sfahelin, Vol. II. p. 470.
a See different portraits of Calvin— in Henry (small biography), in first volume of the Opera,
in Stahelin, in first volume of Merle d'Aubigne' ; also Hornnng's Calvin on his death-bed,
and the medallion portrait made at the festival of the Geneva Reformation.
[In technical disregard of Calvin's wish the large mural monument was erected in
Geneva, 1917, commemorating the Reformation and containing figures of Calvin, Luther,
etc.—
436 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
How different Luther and Zwingli, with their strong animal f oundation^
and their abundance of flesh and blood ! Calvin seemed to be all bone and
nerve. Beza says he looked in death almost the same as alive in sleep.1
His intellectual endowments were of the highest order and thor-
oughly disciplined. He had more constructive, systematizing, and
organizing genius than any other Reformer, and was better adapted
to found a solid, compact, and permanent school of theology. He
was not a speculative or intuitive philosopher, but a consummate lo-
gician and dialectician. Luther and Zwingli cut the stones from the
quarry ; Calvin gave them shape and polish, and erected a magnifi-
cent cathedral of ideas with the skill of a master architect. His
precocity and consistency were marvelous. He did not grow before
the public, like Luther and Melanchthon, and pass through contra-
dictions and retractations, but when a mere youth of twenty-six he
appeared fully armed, like Minerva from the head of Jupiter, and never
changed his views on doctrine or discipline. He had an extraordinary
and well-stored memory, a profound, acute, and penetrating intellect,
a clear, sound, and almost unerring judgment, a perfect mastery over
the Latin and French tongues. His Latin is as easy and elegant, and
certainly as nervous and forcible, as Cicero's, yet free from the pe-
dantic and affected purism of a Bembo and Castalio.2 He is one of
the fathers of modern French, as Luther is the father of modern Ger-
man. His eloquence is logic set on fire by intense conviction. His
Preface to the ' Institutes/ addressed to the King of France, is reck-
oned as one of the three immortal prefaces in literature (to which
only that of President De Thou to his French History and that of
1 Beza thus tersely describes him (at the close of the Vita) : * Statura fuit mediocri, colore
subpallido et nigricante, oculis ad mortem usque limpidis, quique ingenii sagadtatem testaren-
tur: cultu corporis neque culto neque sordido, sed qui singularem modestiam deceret: victu isic
temper ato, ut a sordibus et ab omni luxu longissime abesset: cibi parcissimi, ut qui multos
annos semet quotidie cibum sumpserit, vintriculi imbecillitatem causatus: somnipcBne nuttius;
memories incredibilis, ut quos semel aspexisset multis post annis statim agnosceret, et inter die-
tandum scepe aliquot horas interturbatus statim ad dictata nullo commonefadente rediret, et
eorum, qua* ipsum nosse muneris sui causa inter esset, quantumvis multiplicibus et infinitis ne-
ffotiis oppressusj nunquam tamen oblivisceretur. Judicii, quibuscunque de rebus consuleretur^
tarn pwri et exacti, ut pcene vaticinari scape sit visus, nee aberasse meminerim^ qui consilium
ipsius esset sequutus. Facundice contemptor et verborum parcus, sed minime ineptus scriptor,
et quo nuUus ad hunc diem theologus (absit verbo invidia) purius, gravius, judiciosius denique
scripsit, quum tamen tarn multa scripserit, qucim nemo vel nostra vel patrum memorial
a Who would substitute respubfica for ecclesia, genius for angelus, lotio for bttfrtismus, etc.
§ 56. JOHN CALVIN. 437
Oasaubon to Polybius can be compared); and his 'Institutes' them-
selves, as has been well said, are *in truth a continuous oration, in
which the stream of discussion rolls onward with an impetuous cur-
rent, yet always keeps within its defined channel.'1
He surpassed all other Eeformers (except Beza) in classical culture
and social refinement. He was a patrician by education and taste,
and felt more at ease among scholars and men of high rank than
among the common people. Yet he was quite free from aristocratic
pride, despised all ostentation and display, and esteemed every man ac-
cording to his real worth.
History furnishes, perhaps, no example of a man who with so little
personal popularity had such influence upon the people, and who
with such natural timidity and bashfulness combined such strength
and control over his age and future generations. Constitutionally
a retiring scholar and a man of thought, he became providentially a
mighty man of action and an organizer of churches.
His moral and religious character is impressed with a certain maj-
esty which keeps the admirer at a respectful distance,2 He has often
been compared to an old Roman Censor or Stoic; but he resembles
much more a Hebrew Prophet Severe against others, he was far
more severe against himself, and was always guided by a sense of duty.
Fear of God, purity of motive, spotless integrity, single devotion to
truth and duty, unswerving fidelity, sincere humility are the promi-
nent traits of his character. Soaring high above the earth, he was
absorbed in God — who alone is great — and looked down upon man as
a fleeting shadow. The glory of the Lord and the reformation of the
Church constituted the single passion of his life. His appropriate
symbol was a hand offering the sacrifice of a bleeding heart to God.3
It must be admitted that this kind of greatness, while it commands
our admiration and respect, does not of itself secure our affection and
love. There is a censoriousness and austerity about Calvin and his
creed which repelled many good men, even among his contemporaries.*
1 Fisher, The Reformation, p. 198.
* This was the judgment of the magistrate of Geneva, expressed in these words (June 8,
1564) : cDxe« lui avait imprint un characters d*une si grande majestC
3 'Cor meum velut mactatum Domino in sacrtfidwrn offeroS Subscribed below his auto-
graph in the frontispiece of Henry's smaller biography.
* His ungrateful enemy, Balduin, started the saying among the Genevese, * Bather with Beza in
438 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
He looked more to the holiness than to the love of God. His piety
bears more the stamp of the Old Testament than that of the New.
He represents the majesty and severity of the law rather than the
sweetness and loveliness of the gospel, the obedience of a servant of
Jehovah rather than the joyfulness of a child of our heavenly Father.
Yet even this must be qualified. He sympathized with the spirit
of David and Paul as much as with the spirit of Moses and Elijah,
and had the strongest sense of the freedom of the gospel salvation.
Moreover, behind his cold marble frame there was beating a noble,
loving, and faithful heart, which attracted and retained to the last
the friendship of such eminent servants of God as Farel, Yiret, Beza,
Bucer, Bullinger, Knox, and Melanchthon. * He obtained,' says Gui-
zot, ( the devoted affection of the best men and the esteem of all, with-
out ever seeking to please them.'1 John Knox, his senior in years, sat
at his feet as a humble pupil, and esteemed him the greatest man
after the Apostles. Farel, in his old age, hastened on foot from Neuf-
chatel to Geneva to take leave of his sick friend, and desired to die
in his place. Beza, who lived sixteen years on terms of personal in-
timacy with him, revered and loved him as a father. And even
Melanchthon wished to repose and to die on his bosom. His familiar
correspondence shows him in the most favorable light, and is a suffi- .
cient refutation of all the calumnies and slanders of his enemies.
He lacked the good-nature, the genial humor, the German Gemufk-
lichkeit) the overflowing humanity of Luther, who for this reason will
always be more popular with the masses; but he surpassed him in cult-
ure, refinement, consistency, and moral self -control. Both were equally
unselfish and unworldly. Both were headstrong and will-strong ; but
Calvin was more open to argument and less obstinate. Both had,
like St. Paul, a fiery and violent temper, which was the propelling
force in their hard work, and in fierce battles with the pope and the
hell than with Calvin in heaven.1 And yet they obeyed and revered him. Beza, it should
be remembered, was the perfection of a French gentleman ; yet his theological system was
even more severe than that of Calvin, and he carried the dogma of predestination to the ex-
treme of supralapsarianism. I have met with not a few French, Scotch, and American Chris-
tians who, in the combination of severity and purity, gravity and kindliness of character,
reminded me strongly of Calvin and Beza. I may mention Gaussen, Malan, Merle d'Anbigne*,
Pronier, Adolph Monod, and Guiaot,
1 Page 362.
§ 56. JOHN CALVIN. 439
devil. Hegel says somewhere that c nothing great can be done with-
out passion.' l It is only men of intense convictions and fearless cour-
age that make deep and lasting impressions upon others. But temper
is a force of nature, which must be controlled by reason and regulated
by justice and charity. Luther came down like a thunder-storm upon
his opponents, and used the crushing sledge-hammer indiscriminately
against Eck, Cochlseus, Henry VIII., Erasmus, the Sacramentarians,
and Zwinglians ; while Calvin wielded the sharp sword of irony, wit,
scorn, and contempt in defense of truth, but never from personal
hatred and revenge. ' Even a dog barks/ he says, * when his master
is attacked; how could I be silent when the honor of my Lord is
assailed ?'2 He confessed, however, in a letter to Bucer, and on his
death-bed, that he found it difficult to tame 'the wild beast' of his
wrath, and/ humbly asked forgiveness for his weakness. He had no
children to write to, and to play with around the Christinas-tree, like
Luther, but he appears to better advantage in his relations with men
and women. He treated them, even the much younger Beza, as
equals, overlooked minor differences, and in correcting their faults ex-
pected the same manly frankness from them in return ; while Luther,
growing more irritable and overbearing with advancing years, made
even Melanchthon tremble and fear. But we should charitably re-
member that the faults of these truly great and good men were only
the long shadows of their extraordinary virtues.3
It may be found strange that Calvin never alludes to the paradise
of nature by which he was surrounded on the lovely shores of Lake
1 'Nichts Grosses geschieht ohne LeidenschaftS
* The strongest terms of Calvin against ferocious enemies are canes, porci, bestias, nebulones
(with reference, no doubt, to Scripture usage— Isa. Ivi. 10 ; Matt. vii. 6 ; PhiL iii. 2 ; Eer.
xxii. 1,5) ; but they are mild compared to the coarse and vulgar epithets with which Luther
overwhelmed his opponents, without expressing any regret afterwards, except in the case of
Henry VIIL, where it was least needed, and made the matter worse.
3 Calvin, though fully aware of the defects of Luther, often expressed his admiration for
him (see p. 430), and in January, 1545 (a year before Luther's death), he sent him a letter
(which Melanchthon was afraid to hand to the old lion on account of his excited state of
feeling against the Swiss), closing with these touching words: 'If I could only fly to you
and enjoy your society, even for a few hours ! . . . But since this privilege is not granted to
me on earth, I hope I may soon enjoy it in the kingdom above. Farewell, most illustrious
man, most excellent minister of Christ and father [pater, al. /rater], forever venerable to me.
May the Lord continue to guide you by his Spirit to the end for the common good of hw
Church. ' Opera, Vol. XII. p. 8.
VOL. L— F F
THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Leman, in sight of the lofty Alps that pierce the skies in silent adora-
tion of their Maker. But we look in vain for descriptions of natural
scenery in the whole literature of the sixteenth century; and the
proper appreciation of the beauties of Switzerland, as well as of other
countries, is of more recent date. Calvin had no special organ nor
time for the enjoyment of the beautiful either in nature or in art, but
he appreciated poetry and music.1 He insisted on the introduction of
congregational singing in Geneva, and wrote himself a few poetic
versions of the Psalms, and a hymn of praise to Christ, which are
worthy of Clement Marot and reveal an unexpected vein of poetic
fervor and tenderness.2 The following specimen must suffice :
*1 greet thee, who my sure Redeemer art,
My only trust, and Saviour of my heart!
Who so much toil and woe
And pain didst undergo,
3Tor my poor, worthless sake:
We pray thee, from, our hearts,
All idle griefs and smarts
And foolish cares to take.
'Thou art the true and perfect gentleness,
No harshness hast thou, and no bitterness:
Make us to taste and prove,
Make us adore and love,
The sweet grace found in thee;
With longing to abide
Ever at thy dear side,
In thy sweet unity.
1 Guizot says (p. 164): 'Although Calvin was devoted to the severe simplicity of evangel-
ical worship, he did not overlook the inherent love of mankind for poetry and art. He
himself had a taste for music, and knew its power. He feared that, in a religious service
limited to preaching and prayer only, the congregation, having nothing else to do than to play
the part of audience, would remain cold and inattentive. For this reason he attached great
importance to the introduction and promotion of the practice of Psalm-singing in public wor-
ship. "If the singing," he said, "is such as befits the reverence which we ought to feel when,
we sing before God and the angels, it is an ornament which bestows grace and dignity upon,
our worship ; and it is an excellent method of kindling the heart, and making it burn with,
great ardor in prayer. But we must at all times take heed lest the ear should be more
attentive to the harmony of the sound than the soul to the hidden meaning of the words **
(Instit. Ch. XX.). With this pious warning, he strongly urged the study of singing, and its
adaptation to public worship/ Comp. Gaberel, Vol. I. p. 353.
a These poetic pieces were recently discovered, and published in the sixth volume of the
new edition of his Opera (1867), pp. 212-224. His Salutation a J&us- Christ was trans-
lated into German by Stahelin, and into English by Mrs. Smith, of New York, for Schaffs Christ
in Song, London edition, p. 549. His JSpinicion Christo cantatwn is a polemic poem in Latin
hexameters and pentameters, composed during the Conference at Worms, 1541, in which he
describes the Bomish polemics Eck, Cochlaeus, Nausea, and Pelargus as dragged after tht
chariot of the victorious Redeemer. Opera,. Vol. V. pp. 417-429,
§ 56, JOHN CALVIN.
'Poor, banished exiles, wretched sons of Eve,
Full of all sorrows, unto thee we grieve ;
To thee we bring our sighs,
Our groanings, and our cries;
Thy pity, Lord, we crave ;
We take the sinner's place,
And pray thee, of thy grace,
To pardon and to save.'
TBtBUTES TO CALVIN".
I add some estimates of Calvin's character, which represent very
different stand-points.1
Beza, who knew Oalvin best and watched at his death-bed, concludes
his biography with these words :
* Having been an observer of Calvin's life for sixteen years, I may with perfect right testify
that we have in this man a most beautiful example of a truly Christian life and death, which
it is easy to calumniate but difficult to imitate.'8
Bungener, a pastor of the national Church of Geneva, and author of
several historical works, says:3
1 Let us not give him praise which he would not have accepted. God alone creates ; a
man is great only because God thinks fit to accomplish great things by his instrumentality.
Never did any great man understand this better than Calvin. It cost him no effort to refer
all the glory to God ; nothing indicates that he was ever tempted to appropriate to himself
the smallest portion of it. Luther, in many a passage, complacently dwells on the thought
that a petty monk, as he says, has so well made the Pope to tremble, and so well stirred
the whole world. Calvin will never say any such thing ; he never even seems to say it, even
in the deepest recesses of his heart : every where you perceive the man, who applies to all things
—to the smallest as to the greatest — the idea that it is God who does all and is all. Head again,
from this point of view, the very pages in which he appeared to you the haughtiest and most
despotic, and see if, even there, he is any thing other than the workman referring all, and in
all sincerity, to his Master. . . . But the man, in spite of all his faults, has not the less re-
mained one of the fairest types of faith, of earnest piety, of devotedness, and of courage.
Amid modern laxity, there is no character of whom the contemplation is more instructive ;
for there is no man of whom it has been said with greater justice, in the words of an apostle,
"he endured as seeing him who is invisibk." *
Jules Michelet, the French historian, remarks :4
'Among the martyrs, with whom Calvin constantly conversed in spirit, he became a martyr
himself; he felt and lived like a man before whom the whole earth disappears, and who tunes
his last Psalm, his whole eye fixed upon the eye of God, because he knows that on the follow-
ing morning he may have to ascend the stake.7
1 We omit Henry and Stahelin, from whom it would be difficult to select passages in
praise of Calvin. See especially the entire Seventh Book of Stahelin, Vol. II., pp. 365-393 :
Calvin als Mensch und als Christ.
3 'JEgo historiam vita et obitus ipsius, cujus spectator sedecim annosfui, bonajide perseqtt*
utus testari mihi optima jure posse videor, lonoe pulcherrimum vere Christiana turn vita turn
'mortis exemplum in hoc homine cunctis propositum fuisse, quod tarn facile sit calumniari, guan
difficile fuerit amulari.'
3 Cctlvin, etc. English translation, pp. 338, 349.
* In his Histoire de France au seizieme siecle, quoted by Stahelin, Vol. I. p. 276.
44:2 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Ernest Kenan, once educated for the Romish priesthood, then a
skeptic, with all his abhorrence of Calvin's creed, pays the following
striking tribute to his character : l
' Calvin was one of those absolute men, cast complete in one mould, who is taken in wholly
at a single glance : one letter, one action suffices for a judgment of him. There were no
folds in that inflexible soul, which never knew doubt or hesitation. . . . Careless of wealth,
of titles of honors, indifferent to pomp, modest in his life, apparently humble, sacrificing
every thing to the desire of making others like himself, I hardly know of a man, save Ignatius
Loyola who could match him in these terrible transports. ... It is surprising that a man
who appears to us in his life and writings so unsympathetic should have been the centre of
an immense movement in his generation, and that this harsh and severe tone should have
exerted so great an influence on the minds of his contemporaries. How was it, for example,
that one of the most distinguished women of her time, Rene'e of France, in her court at Fer-
rara surrounded by the flower of European wits, was captivated by that stern master, and by
him drawn into a course that must have been so thickly strewn with thorns ? This kind of
austere seduction is exercised by those only who work with real conviction. Lacking that
vivid deep sympathetic ardor which was one of the secrets of Luther's success, lacking the
charm, the perilous, languishing tenderness of Francis of Sales, Calvin succeeded, in an age
and in a country which called for a reaction towards Christianity, simply because he was THE
MOST CHBISTIAN MAN OF HIS GENERATION.'
Guizot, a very competent judge of historical and moral greatness,
thus concludes his biography:2
* Calvin is great by reason of his marvelous powers, his lasting labors, and the moral height
and purity of his character. . . . Earnest in faith, pure in motive, austere in his life, and mighty
in his works, Calvin is one of those who deserve their great fame. Three centuries separate
us from him, but it is impossible to examine his character and history without feeling, if not
affection and sympathy, at least profound respect and admiration for one of the great Ke-
formers of Europe and of the great Christians of France.7
Prof. Kahnis, of Leipzig, whose personal and theological sympathies
are with Luther, nevertheless asserts the moral superiority of Calvin
above the other Reformers:3
* The fear of God was the soul of his piety, the rock-like certainty of his election before the
foundation of the world was his power, and the doing of the will of God his single aim, which
he pursued with trembling and fear. ... No other Reformer has so well demonstrated the
truth of Christ's word that, in the kingdom of God, dominion is service. No other had such
an energy of self-sacrifice, such an irrefragable conscientiousness in the greatest as well as the
smallest things, such a disciplined power. This man, whose dying body was only held to-
gether by the will flaming from his eyes, had a majesty of character which commanded the
veneration of his contemporaries/
Prof. Corner, of Berlin, the first among the theologians of the age,
distinguished by profound learning, penetrating thought, rare catho-
licity of spirit, and nice sense of justice and discrimination, says :
* Calvin was equally great in intellect and character, lovely in social life, full of tender sym-
pathy and faithfulness to friends, yielding and forgiving towards personal offenses, but in-
exorably severe when he saw the honor of God obstinately and malignantly attacked. He
combined French fire and practical good sense with German depth and soberness. He moved
1 In his article on Jean Calvin, above quoted, pp. 286, etc. The translation is by O. B.
Frothingham, a radical Unitarian in New Tork.
3 St. Louis and Calvin, pp. 361 and 362.
3 Die Lvtherische Doymatib Vol. II. pp. 490, 49J-
§ 56. JOHN CALVIN. 443
as freely in the world of ideas as in the business of Church government. He was an archi-
tectonic genius in science and practical life, always with an eye to the holiness and maj-
esty of God.'1 J J
Prof. G. T. Fisher, of Yale College, New Haven, gives the following
fair and impartial estimate of Calvin : 2
* When we look at his extraordinary intellect, at his culture — which opponents, like Bos-
suet, have been forced to commend — at the invincible energy which made him endure with
more than stoical fortitude infirmities of body under which most men would have sunk, and
to perform, in the midst of them, an incredible amount of mental labor ; when we see him. a
scholar naturally fond of seclusion, physically timid, and recoiling from notoriety and strife,
abjuring the career that was most to his taste, and plunging, with a single-hearted, disinter-
ested zeal and an indomitable will, into a hard, protracted contest ; and when we follow his
steps, and see what things he effected, we can not deny him the attributes of greatness. . . .
His last days were of a piece with his life. His whole course has been compared by Vinet
to the growth of one rind of a tree from another, or to a chain of logical sequences. He was
endued with a marvelous power of understanding, although the imagination and sentiments
were less roundly developed. His systematic spirit fitted him to be the founder of an en-
during school of thought. In this characteristic he may be compared with Aquinas. He
has been appropriately styled the Aristotle of the Reformation. He was a perfectly honest
man. He subjected his will to the eternal rule of right, as far as he could discover "it. His
motives were pure. He felt that God was near him, and sacrificed every thing to obey the
direction of Providence. The fear of God ruled in his soul ; not a slavish fear, but a prin-
ciple such as animated the prophets of the Old Covenant. The combination of his qualities
was such that he could not fail to attract profound admiration and reverence from one class
of minds, and excite intense antipathy in another. There is no one of the Reformers who is
spoken of, at this late day, with so much personal feeling, either of regard or aversion. But
whoever studies his life and writings, especially the few passages in which he lets us into his
confidence and appears to invite our sympathy, will acquire a growing sense of his intellectual
and moral greatness, and a tender consideration for his errors/
1 Geschichte der Protest. Theologie, pp. 874 and 376. I add his considerate judgment of
Calvin in full : 'Die nach ZwinoJi's und (Ecolampatfs Tode verwaiste reformirte JZirche
erhielt an JOHANN CALVIN, gleich gross an Geist und Charakter, einen festen Mittelpunkt
und eine ordnende Seele fur Lehre und JKirchenverfassung. Durch ihn wurde Genf statt
Ziirichs die nine reformirte Metropole; und dieses Gemeinwesen bewies eine wunderbare,
weithin erobernde Kraft. . . . Calvin's persSnUche Erscheinung war die eines altromischen
Censors; er war von feinem Wuchs, blass, hager, mit dem Ausdruck tiefen Ernstes und ein-
schneidender Scharfe. Der Senat von Genfsagte nach seinem Tode, er sei ein majestatischer
Charakter gewesen. Liebenswwrdig im socialen Leben, voll zarter Theilnahme und Freundes-
treue, nachsichtig und versShnlich bei persSnlichen Beleidigungen, war er unerbittlich strenff,
wo er Gottes Ehre in Hartnacldgkeit oder Bosheit angegriffen sah. Unter seinen Collegen
hatte er keine Neider, aber viele begeisterte Verehrer. Franzosisches Feuer und praktischer
Verstand schienen mit deutscher Tiefe und Besonnenheit einen Bund geschlossen zu haben.
War er auch nicht spekulativen oder intuitiven Geistes, so war dagegen sein Verstand und sein
Urtheil urn so eindringender und schdrfer, sein Gedachtniss umfassend; und er bewegte sich
ebenso leicht in der Welt der Ideen und der Wissenschaft, wie in den Geschaften des Kirchen-
regiments. Zwar ist er nicht ein Mann des Volkes, wie Luther, sondem in seiner Sprache
mehr der Gelehrte, und seine Wirksamkeit ah Prediger und Seelsorger kann daher mit der
Luthers nicht verglichen werden. Dagegen ist er mehr ein architektonischer Geist und zwar
sowohl im Gebiete der Wissenschaft als des Lebens. Beide sind ihm in ihrer Wurzel eins, und
seine dogmatischen Constructionen, so kuhn sie in der Folgerichtigkeit ihrer Gedanken sind, be-
halten ihm doch immer zugleich erbaulichen Charakter. Auch wo er verwegen in die gSttlichen
Geheimnisse der Predestination einzudringen sucht, immer Idtet ihn der praktische Trieb, der
Heiligkeit und Majestat Gottes zu dienen, fur das Gemuth aber den ewigenAnkergrund zu Jin-
den, darin es im Bewusstsein derErwiihlung durchfreie Gnade sicher ruhen kdnne.9
* The Reformation, pp. 206 and 238.
THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
§ 57. CALVIN'S WORK.
Of Calvin it may be said, without exaggeration, that he c labored
more' than all the other Reformers.
He raised the little town of Geneva to the dignity and importance
of the Protestant Borne.1
From this radiating centre he controlled, directly or indirectly,
through his writings and his living disciples, the Reformed, yea, we
may say, the whole Protestant movement; for, wherever it had not
already taken root, as in Germany and Scandinavia, Protestantism as-
sumed a Calvinistic or semi-Calvinistic character.2
His heart continued, indeed, to beat warmly for his native land,
which he reluctantly left to share the fortunes of truth exiled, and he
raised the cry which is to this day the motto of his faithful disciples :
* France must be evangelized to be saved.' But his true home was the
Church of God. He broke through all national limitations. There
was scarcely a monarch or statesman or scholar of his age with whom
he did not come in contact. Every people of Europe was represented
among his disciples. He helped to shape the religious character of
churches and nations yet unborn. The Huguenots of France, the
1 The eminent French historian, H. Martin (in his Histoire de France depuis les temps les
plus recules jusqu'en 1789, Tom. VIII. p. 325 of the fourth edition, Par. 1860), thus speaks
of what Calvin did for the city of Geneva: * Calvin ne la sauvepas settlement^ metis conquiert a
cette petite mile une grandeur, une puissance morale immense. II en fait la capitale de la R6-
forme, autant que la Meforme peut avoir une capitale, pour la moiti€ du monde protestante,
avec une vaste influence, acceptte ou subie^ sur Fautre moitie'. Geneve nest Tien par la popu-
lation, par les arrnes, par le territoire: elle est tout par F esprit. Un seul wantage materiel
lui garantit tous ses avantages moraux: son admirable position, qui fait d*el]e une petite
France republicaine et protestante, ind^p end ante de la monarchic catholique de France et a
Fabri de F absorption monarchique et catholique; la Suisse protestante, attire necessaire de la
royaut€ frangaise contre Fempereur, couvre Geneve par la politique vis-a-vis du roi et par
Fepe'e contre la ?naison d'Autriche et de Savoie.*
3 Kampschulte, VoL I. p. xii. : l£)er romanische Reformator zQhlte seine Anhanger in der
romanischen, germanischen und slavischen Welt und zeigte sich uberall, wo nicht das Luther-
thum in dem deutschen Character eine Stutze fand, diesem uberlegen^ He quotes the fact
that in Bohemia, which borders on Germany, the Slavonian Protestants nearly all profess
Calvinism, while Lutheranism is confined to the Germans. The same is still more the case
with the Anglo-Saxon race in England, America, and Australia, and in the mission fields
among the heathen. In Italy and Spain, too, the Waldenses and the evangelical Churches
are, both in doctrine and discipline, much more Calvinistic than Lutheran ; but so far Prot-
estantism has a very feeble hold on the Latin races, which are more apt to swing from popery
to infidelity, and from infidelity to popery, than to adopt the via media either of Lutheranigm
or Calvinism or Anglicanism.
§ 57. CALVIN'S WORK.
Protestants of Holland and Belgium, the Puritans and Independents
of England and New England, the Presbyterians of Scotland and
throughout the world, yea, we may say, the whole Anglo-Saxon race,
in its prevailing religious character and institutions, bear the impress
of his genius, and show the power and tenacity of his doctrines and
principles of government.1
From him proceeded the first Protestant missionary colony in the
newly discovered American Continent.2
He conceived the idea of a general Evangelical Alliance which,
though impracticable in his age, found an echo in Melanchthon and
1 'In Iris vast correspondence we find him conversing familiarly with the Reformers — Farel,
Viret, Beza, Bullinger, Bucer, Grynseus, Knox, Melanchthon — on the most important religious
and theological questions of his age ; counseling and exhorting Prince Conde, Jeanne D'Al-
bret, mother of Henry IV., Admiral Coligny, the Duchess of Ferrara, King Sigismund of
Poland, Edward VI. of England, and the Duke of Somerset ; respectfully reproving Queen
Marguerite of Navarre; withstanding libertines and the pseudo-Protestants ; strengthening the
martyrs, and directing the Reformation in Switzerland, France, Poland, England, and Scot-
land. He belongs to the small number of men who have exerted a moulding influence, not
only upon their own age and country, but also upon future generations in various parts of
the world ; and not only upon the Church, but indirectly also upon the political, moral, and
social life. The history of Switzerland, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Great Britain,
and the United States for the last three hundred years bears upon a thousand pages the im-
press of his mind and character. He raised the small republic of Geneva to the reputation
of a Protestant Rome. He gave the deepest impulse to the Beform movement, which involved
France, his native land, in a series of bloody civil wars, which furnished a host of martyrs to
the evangelical faith, and which continues to live in that powerful nation in spite of the horrid
massacre of St. Bartholomew and the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, the dragoonades and
exile of hosts of Huguenots, who, driven from their native soil, carried their piety, virtue, and
industry to all parts of Western Europe and North America. He kindled the religious fire
which roused the moral and intellectual strength of Holland, and consumed the dungeons of
the Inquisition and the fetters of the political despotism of Spain. His genius left a stronger
mark on the national character of the Anglo-Saxon race and the Churches of Great Britain
than their native Reformers. His theology and piety raised Scotland from a semi-barbarous
condition, and made it the classical soil of Presbyterian Christianity, and one of the most en-
lightened, energetic, and virtuous countries on the face of the globe. His spirit stirred up
the Puritan revolution of the seventeenth century, and his blood ran in the veins of Hampden
and Cromwell, as well as Baxter and Owen. He may be called, in some sense, the spiritual
father of New England and the American republic. Calvinism, in its various modifications
and applications, was the controlling agent in the early history of our leading colonies (as
Bancroft has shown) ; and Calvinism is, to this day, the most powerful element in the re-
ligious and ecclesiastical life of the Western world.'— From the author's Essay on Calvin, in
the BibL Sacra for 1857.
2 On the interesting French colony in Brazil, 1556, consisting of two clergymen and about
two hundred members of the Church of Geneva, see Stahelin, Vol. II. pp. 234 sqq. The col-
ony was broken up by the interference of the French government and by Papal intrigues. But
it was a harbinger of the later emigrations of persecuted Huguenots in several parts of North
America, who enriched the Presbyterian, Dutch, and German Reformed and other Churches.
446 TSE CREEDS OF CHKISTENDOM.
Craiimer, and was revived in the nineteenth century (1846) to be real-
ized at no distant future.1
His work and influence were twofold, theological and ecclesiastical.
With him theory and practice, theology and piety, were inseparably
united. Even when, soaring beyond the limits of time, he dared to lift
the veil of the eternal decrees of the omniscient Jehovah, he aimed at
a strong motive for holiness, and a firm foundation of hope and com-
fort. On the other hand, his moral reforms are all based upon princi-
ples and ideas. He was thoroughly consistent in his views and actions.
HIS THEOLOG-Y.
As a scientific theologian, Calvin stands foremost among the Ee-
formers, and is the peer of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. He
has been styled the Aristotle of Protestantism. Melanchthon, cthe
Teacher of Germany,' first called him ' the Theologian,' in the em-
phatic sense in which this title was given to Gregory of Nazianzen
in the Nieene age, and to the inspired Apostle John. The verdict of
history has confirmed this judgment. Even Rationalists and Roman
Catholics must admit his pre-eminence among the systematic divines
and exegetes of all ages.2
1 Comp. Stahelin, Vol. H. pp. 198, 241.
* The Strasburg editors of Calvin's Works, though belonging to the modern liberal school
of theology, thus characterize him as a theologian (CjperajVol. I. p. ix.): *£* Lutherum
virum maximum, si ZwingUum civem Chri&tianum nulli secundum, si Melanthonem prcecepto-
rem doctissimum merito appellaris^ Calvinum jure vocaris THEOLOGORTTM PBINCIPEM ET JLNTE-
SIGNANUM, In hoc enim quis linguarum et liter arum prcesidia, quis disciplinarum fere omnium
non miretur orbem? De cujus copia doctrince, rerumque dispositione aptissime concinnata, et
argumentorum vi ac validitate in dogmaticis; de ingenii acumine et subtilitate, atgue nuncf es-
tiva nunc mordaci salsedine in polemicis, de felicissima perspicuitate, sobrietate ac sagacitate
in exegeticiS) de nervosa eloquentia et libertate in parceneticis ; de prudentia sapientiaque legis-
latoria in ecclesiis constituendis, ordinandis ac regendis incomparabili, inter omnes viros doctos
et de rebus evangel-ids lib ere sentientes jam abunde constat. Imo inter ipsos adversaries ro-
manos nuttus hodie est, vel mediocri harum rerum cognitione imbutus vel tantitta judicii prceditus
cequitate, qui argumentorum et sententiarum ubertatem, proprietatem verborum sermonemque
castigatum, still denique, tarn latini quam aattici, gravitatem et luciditatem non admiretur.
QUCB cuncta quum in singulis fere scriptis, turn prcecipue relucent in immortali ilia Institu-
tione religionis Christiana, quce omnes ejusdem generis expositiones inde ab apostolorum tern-
poribus conscriptas, adeoque ipsos Melanthonis Locos tkeologicos, absque omni controversia
longt antecellit atque eruditum et ingenuum lectorem, etiamsi alicubi secus senserit, hodiequ*
quasi vinctum trahit et vel invitum rapit in admirationem.9 To this we add a remarkable
tribute of a liberal Roman Catholic historian who abhors Calvin's doctrine of absolute pre-
destination, and yet becomes eloquent when he speaks of the literary merits of his 'Institutes.'
Lekrbuch der christlichen Religion^ says Kampschulte (Vol. L p. xivO, ' bringt di*
§ 57. CALVIN'S WORK.
The appearance of his Institirfes of the Christian Religion1 (first
in Latin, then in French) marks an epoch in the history of theology,
and has all the significance of an event. This book belongs to those
few uninspired compositions which never lose their interest and power.
It has not only a literary, but an institutional character. Considering
the youth of the author, it is a marvel of intellectual precocity. The
first edition even contained, in brief outline, all the essential elements
of his system; and the subsequent enlargements to five times the
kirchliche Revolution in ein System, das durch logische Scharfe, Klarheit des Gedankens, ruck*
sichtslose Consequenz, die vor nichts zuriickbebt, noch heute unser Staunen und unsere Bewun-
derung erregt.1 Ibid. p. 274: ' Calvin's Lekrbuch der christHchen Religion ist ohne Frage
das hervorragendste und bedeutendste Erzeugniss, welches die reformatorisehe Liter atur des
sechszehnten Jahrhunderts auf dem Gebiete der Dogmatik aufzuweisen hat. Schon ein ober-
flachlicher Vergleich lasst uns den gewaltigen Fortschritt erkennen, den es gegenuber den bis-
herigen Leistungen aufdiesem Gebiete bezeichnet. Statt der unvollkommenen, nach der einen
oder andern Seite unzulang lichen Versuche Melanchthon's, Zwingli's, Farefs erhalten wir aits
Calvin's Hand das Kunstwerk eines, wenn auch nicht harmonisch in sich abgeschlossenen, so
dock wohlgegliederten, durchgebildeten Systems, das in alien seinen Theilen die leitenden
Grundgedanken widerspiegelt und von vollstandiger Beherrschung des Stoffes zeugt* Es hatte
eine unverkennbare Berechtigung, wenn man den Verfasser der Institution als den Aristoteles
der Reformation bezeichnete. Die ausserordentliche Belesenheit in der Ublischen und patris-
tischen Idteratur^ wie sie schon in denfruheren Ausgaben des Werkes hervortritt, setzt in Er-
staunen. Die Methode ist lichtvott und klar, der Gedankengang streng logisch, uber all durch-
sichtig, die Eintheilung und Ordnung des Stoffes dem leitenden Grundgedanken entsprechend ;
die Darstellung schreitet ernst und gemessen vor und nimmt, obschon in den spat er en Ausgaben
mehr gelehrt als anziehend^ mehr auf den Verstand als auf das Gemuth berechnetj dock zuweilen
einen hoheren Schwung an. Calvin's Institution enthalt Abschnitte, die dem Schdnsten, was
von Pascal und Bossuet geschrieben worden ist^ an die Seite gestellt werden kSnnen : Stetten,
wiejene uber die JSrhabenheit der heiligen Schrift, uber das Elend des gefallenen Menschen,
uber die Bedeutung des Gebetes, werden nie verfehlen, auf den Leser einen tiefen Eindruck zu
machen. Auch von den katholischen Gegnern Calvin's sind diese Vorzuge anerkannt und
manche Abschnitte seine's Werkes sogar benutzt worden. Man begreift es vollkommen, wenn
er selbst mit dem Gefufil der Befriedigung und des Stolzes auf sein Werk blickt und tn seinen
ubrigen Schriften gem auf das "Lehrbuch" zuruckverweist,'
1 The full title of the first edition is 'CHRISTIA- | NJE RELIGIONIS INSTI- | tutio totamfere
pietatis summam et quic \ quid est in doctrina salutis cognitu ne- \ cessarium, complectens:
omnibus pie- \ tatis studiosis lectu dignissi- \ mum opus, ac re- \ cens edi- \ turn. \ PJRJSFATIO
AD CHEI- | STIANISSIMUM BEGEM FRANCIS, qua \ hie ei Uber pro confessionejidei \ offertur.\
JOANNE CALVINO | Nouiodunensi authore. \ BASILEJB, | M.D.XXXVI.' The dedicatory
Preface is dated ' X. Calendas Septembres' (i. e. August 23), without the year ; hut at the close
of the hook the month of March, 1536, is given as the date of publication. The first two
French editions (1541 and 1545) supplement the date of the Preface correctly: * De Basle
le vingt-troysiesme d'Aoust mil cinq cent trente cinq. ' The manuscript, then, was completed in
Aug. 1535, hut it took nearly a year to print it. The eighth and last improved edition from
the pen of the author bears the title: 'INSTITUTIO CHKI- | STIAN^J RELIGIONIS, in libros
qua- | tuor nunc primum digesta, certisque distincta capitibus} ad aptissimam \ methodum :
aucta etiam tarn magna accessione ut propemodum opus \ novum haberi possit. | JoANNB
CALVINO AUTHOBB. J OLIVA EOBEBTI STBPHANI. | Geneva, j M.D.LIX.'
448 THE C&EEDS OF CHRISTENDOM:.
original size were not mechanical additions to a building or changes
of conviction,1 but the natural growth of a living organism from
within.2
The ' Institutes' are by far the clearest and ablest systematic and
scientific exposition and vindication of the ideas of the Eeformation in
their vernal freshness and pentecostal fire. The book is inspired by a
heroic faith ready for the stake, and a glowing enthusiasm for the
saving truth of the gospel, raised to a new life from beneath the rub-
bish of human additions. Though freely using reason and the fathers,
especially Augustine, it always appeals to the supreme tribunal of the
Word of God, to which all human wisdom must bow in reverent obe-
dience. It abounds in Scripture-learning thoroughly digested, and
wrought up into a consecutive chain of exposition and argument. It
is severely logical, but perfectly free from the dryness and pedantry
of a scholastic treatise, and flows on, like a Swiss river, through green
1 */TI doctrina,' says Beza, towards the close of his Vita Calv., 'quam initio tradidit ad
extremum constans nihil prorsus immutavit, quod paucis nostra memoria theologis contigit.'
Bretschneider was quite mistaken when he missed in the first edition the doctrine of predes-
tination, which is clearly though briefly indicated, pp. 91 and 138. See Kampschulte, p. 256.
a The Strashurg editors devote the first four volumes to the different editions of the /»-
stitutes in hoth languages. Vol. I. contains the editio princeps Latino, of Basle, 1536 (pp.
10-247), and the variations of six editions intervening between the first and the last, viz.,
the Strasburg editions of 1539, 1543, 1545, and the Geneva editions of 1/550, 1553, 1554
(pp. 253-1 152;; Vol. II. the editio postrema of 1559 (pp. 1-1118); Vol. III. and IV. the
last edition of the French translation, or free reproduction rather (1560), with the varia-
tions of former editions. The question of the priority of the Latin or French text is now
settled in favor of the former, See Jules Bonnet, in the Bulletin de la Soci€t€ de rhi$~
toire du protestantisme frangais for 1858, Vol. VI. pp. 137 sqq., Stahelin, Vol. I. p. 55, and
the Strashurg editors of the Opera, in the ample Prolegomena to Vols. I, and III. Calvin
himself says expressly (in the Preface to his French ed. 1541) that he first wrote the Insti-
tutes in* Latin (c premierement Vay mis en fating for readers of all nations, and that he trans-
lated them afterwards for the special benefit of Frenchmen. In a letter to his friend, Francis
Daniel, dated Lausanne, Oct. 13, 1536, he writes that he began the French translation soon
after the publication of the Latin (Letters, ed. Bonnet, Vol. I. p. 21), but it did not appear
till 1541, bearing the title 'Institution de la religion Chrestienne COMPOSES EN LATIN, par
Jean Calvin, et translate enfrangais par fuymesme.' The erroneous assertion of a French
original, so often repeated (by Bayle, Maimbourg, Basnage, and more recently by Henry, Vol.
I. p. 104 ; III. p. 177 ; Dorner, Geseh. der protest. Theol p. 375 ; H. B. Smith, 1. c. p. 283 ;
and Guizot, p. 176, who assumes that the first French ed. was published anonymously), arose
from confounding the date of the Preface in the French editions (23 Aug. 1535) with the later
date of publication (1536). It is quite possible, however, that the dedication to Francis I.
was first written in French, and this would most naturally account for the earlier date in the
French editions. On the difference of the several editions, comp. also J. THOMAS, Histoire
de rinstit. ckr&ienne de J. Calv., Strasb. 1859, and KOSTLIN, Calvin's Institutio nach Form
und Inha.lt, in the Studien. und Kritiken for 1868.
§ 57. CALVIN'S WORK. 449
meadows and sublime mountain scenery. It overshadowed all pre-
vious attempts at a systematic treatment of Protestant doctrines, not
only those of Zwingli and Farel, but even Melanchthon's Loci theo-
logioi, although Calvin generously edited them twice in a French
translation with a complimentary preface (1546).1
No wonder that the ' Institutes' were greeted with enthusiastic praises
by Protestants, which are not exhausted to this day.2 They created
dismay among Romanists, were burned at Paris by order of the Sor-
bonne, and hated and feared as the very ' Talmud' and c Koran of
heresy.53 In spite of severe prohibition, they were translated into all
the languages of Europe, and passed through innumerable editions.
Among the Protestants of France they acquired almost as much au-
thority as Luther's Bible in Germany, and comforted the martyrs in
1 See the Preface in Opera, Vol. IX. pp. 847-850. It is written in excellent taste, and
with profound respect and affection for Melanchthon, whose work, he concludes, 6 conduit a
la pure verite de Dieu, a laquelle it nous convient tenir, nous servant des hommes pour nous
aider a y parvenir.'
3 See the eulogies of Bucer, Beza, Sainte-Marthe, Thurius, Blunt, Salmasius, John von Miill-
er, and others, quoted by Heniy and St'ahelin (Vol. I. pp. 59 sqq.). To these may be added
some more recent testimonies. Guizot says (1. c. p. 1 73) : * The Institutes were and are still
the noblest monument of the greatness of mind and originality of idea which distinguished
Calvin in his own century. More than that, I believe this book to be the most valuable and
enduring of all his labors ; for those churches which are specially known as the Reformed
Churches of France, Switzerland, Holland, Scotland, and the United States of America re-
ceived from Cabin's Institutes the doctrine, organization, and discipline which, in spite of
sharp trials, grave mistakes, and claims which are incompatible with the progress of liberty,
have still, for more than three centuries, been the source of all their strength and vitality.'
Hase (in his Kirchengeschichte) calls the Institutes ''die grossartigste wissenschaftliche
Rechtfertigung des Augustinismus voll religidsen Tiefsinns in unerlittlicher Folgerichtigkeit
der Gedanken.' G. Frank (GescL der Protest. Theol Vol. I. p. 74) : ' Wie Melanchthon hat
auch Calvin seinen Glauben zusammengefasst in einerti besonderen Werke, der Inst. rel. chr.,
nur methodischer, folgerichtiger^ uberlegner, die grdsste Glaubenslehre des 16 Jahrh. ist sie
wie ein hochgewolbt&r, dunkler Dom, darin der Ernst der Religion in andachtigem Schauer
sich uber die Seek legt.1 H. B. Smith (1. c. p. 288) : ' It is the most complete system [of
theology] which the 16th century produced, nor has it been supplanted by any single work.'
Baur (Dogmengeschichte, Vol. HI. p. 27) calls it ' in every respect a truly classical work,
distinguished in a high degree by originality and acuteness of conception, systematic con-
sistency, and clear, luminous method.' To many editions of the Institutes the well-known
distich of the Hungarian Paul Thurius is affixed :
* Prceter apostolicas post Christt tempora chartas,
Huic peper&re libro sceeula nulla par&mS
3 Horimond de Rsemond, Histoire de la naissance, progrez et decadence de Vh€r€dt de ce
siecle, pp. 838, 883, quoted by Kampschulte (p. 278), who adds : « Keine Schrift des Refor-
mationszeitalters ist von den Katholiken mehr gefurchtet, eifriger bekampft und verfolgt wor-
den, als Calvin's Christliche Institution.' See his own judgment quoted on pp. 446 sq., note.
450 THE CREEDS OF CHKISTENDOM.
prison. In England, after the accession of Elizabeth, they were long
used as the text-book of theology; and even the moderate and 'ju-
dicious' Hooker prized them highly, and pronounced Calvin c incom-
parably the wisest man that ever the French Church did enjoy.'
This remarkable work was originally a defense of the evangelical
doctrines against ignorant or willful misrepresentation, and a plea for
toleration in behalf of his scattered fellow-Protestants in France, who
were then violently persecuted as a set of revolutionary fanatics and
heretics. Hence the dedicatory Preface to Francis L As the early
Apologists addressed the Eoman emperors to convince them that the
Christians were innocent of the foul charges of atheism, immorality,
and hostility to Csesar, so Calvin appealed to the French monarch in
defense of his equally innocent countrymen, with a manly dignity,
frankness, force, and pathos never surpassed before or since. It is a
sad reflection that such a voice of warning should have had so little
effect, and that the noble French nation even this day would rather
listen to the revolutionary c Marseillaise' of Voltaire and Kousseau than
to the reformatory trumpet of Calvin.
The ' Institutes,' to which this dedication to the French monarch forms
the magnificent portal, consist of four books (each divided into a num-
ber of chapters), and treat, after the natural and historical order of the
Apostles' Creed, first of the knowledge of God the Creator (theology) ;
secondly, of the knowledge of God the Eedeemer (christology) ; thirdly,
of the Holy Spirit and the application of the saving work of Christ
(soteriology) ; fourthly, of the external means of salvation, viz., the
Church and the Sacraments.1
The most prominent and original features of Calvin's theological
system, which have left their impress upon the Reformed Creed, are the
doctrine of Predestination and the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. By
the first he widened the breach between the Reformed and the Lu-
theran Church ; by the second he furnished a basis for reconciliation.
1 The first edition of the Institutes contains only six chapters: 1. De kge, with an ex-
planation of the Decalogue; 2. Defide, with an exposition of the Apostles' Creed; 3. De
oratione, with an exposition of the Lord's Prayer ; 4. Of the Sacraments of Baptism and the
Lord's Supper; 5. Of the other so-called Sacraments; 6. Of Christian liberty, Church-
government, and discipline.
§ 57. CALVIN'S WORK. 451
THE DOCTRINE OF PREDESTINATION.
All the Reformers of the sixteenth century, including even the
gentle Melanchthon and the compromising Bucer, under a controlling
sense of human depravity and saving grace, in extreme antagonism to
Pelagianism and self -righteousness, and, as they sincerely believed, in
full harmony not only with the greatest of the fathers, but also with
the inspired St. Paul, came to the same doctrine of a double predesti-
nation which decides the eternal destiny of all men. Nor is it possible
to evade this conclusion on the two acknowledged premises of Prot-
estant orthodoxy — namely, the wholesale condemnation of men in
Adam, and the limitation of saving grace to the present world. If the
Lutheran theology, after the Formula of Concord (1577), rejected
Synergism and Calvinism alike, and yet continued to teach the total
depravity of all men and the unconditional election of some, it could
only be done at the expense of logical consistency.1
Yet there were some characteristic differences among the Reformers.
Luther started from the servum arbitrium, Zwingli from the idea of
1 Schleiermacher, the greatest divine of the nineteenth century, has defended Calvinism
as the only consistent system on the hasis of the orthodox anthropology and eschatology
(though he runs it out into a final, unscriptural universalism) ; and his pupil, Alexander
Schweizer, of Zurich (in his Glaubenskhre der evang. reform. Kirche, Vol. I. pp. 79 and 81),
thus clearly and sharply states the logical aspect of the case: 'Der reformirte Lehrbegriff,
consequent gegrundet auf das Materialprincip schlechthiniger Abhangigkeit von Gott und von
da aus das menschliche Than beleuchtend, ohne dessen willenstn&ssige Natur zu verkleinern, ist
weniger durch seinen Determinismus ansffissig geworden, als durch das dualistisch Particu-
laristische der auf die Predestination angewandten Weltansicht. Gerade dieses aber gehdrt
der Weltansicht aller damaligen Confessionen gleich sehr an undfolgt wirklich aus der For-
stellung, dass unser ewiges Loos beim irdischen Sterben entschieden set, nur hienieden Erloste
selig werden, alle Andern aber verdammt bleiben. . . . Das Harte am reformirten Lehrbe-
griff ist der dualistische Particularisms, der aber alien Confessionen gemein durch die re-
formirte Consequenz nur heller in's Licht gestellt wird, wodurch allein, falls er trrig ware, die
Forderung zur Wahrheit angebahnt ist. 1. Dualistischer Particularismus ist die Idee, dass
in der Menschen- und Engelwelt die einen selig werden, die andern ewig verdammt. Diess
war die Ansicht aller kirchlichen Confessionen, indem der Universalismus, die Beseligung
aller rationalen Kreaturen in alien drei Confessionen, als hceretische Irrlehre abgewiesen
vjurde. 2. Liegt im Particularisms Hartes, die Gute Gottes Beschrankendes, so ist es un-
gerecht, daruber nur die reformirte Confession nnzugehen^ die weiter nichts gethan, als gelehrt
hat : Das Weltergebniss musse dem Weltplan entsprechen, somit habe Gott euoig grade diese
Welt mit diesem J&rgebniss gewollt und eine particularistische Predestination bei sich be-
schlossen, wovon nun alle Weltentwicklung einfach die AnsfUkrung sei; denn dass alles
anders herauskomme, als Gott es gewollt, heisse Gott von den Kreaturen abhSngig machen,
die Kreaturen zu GSttern machen, Gott aber zum Ungott.' Comp. also Baur, Dogmen-
geschichte>Vol III. (1867), pp. 144 sqq.
452 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
an all-ruling providentia, Calvin from the timeless or eternal decretum
absolutum. Calvin elaborated the doctrine of predestination with
greater care and precision, and avoided < the paradoxes' of his prede-
cessors. He made it, moreover, the corner-stone of his system, and
gave it undue proportion. He set the absolute sovereignty of God over
against the mock sovereignty of the Pope. It was for him the c article
of the standing or falling Church ;J while Luther always assigned
this position to the doctrine of justification by faith alone. In this
estimate, both were mistaken, for the central place in the Christian
system belongs only to the person and work of Christ — the incarna-
tion and the atonement. Finally, the Augustinian and Lutheran pre-
destinarianism is moderated by the sacramentarian principle of bap-
tismal regeneration; while the Calvinistic predestinarianism confines
the sacramental efficacy to the elect, and turns the baptism of the
non-elect into an empty form.
Predestination, according to Calvin, is the eternal and unchangeable
decree of God by which he foreordained, for his own glory and the
display of his attributes of mercy and justice, a part of the human race,
without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part,
in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation. The decree is,
therefore, twofold — a decree of election to holiness and salvation, and
a decree of reprobation on account of sin and guilt.1 The latter is
the negative counterpart, which strict logic seems to demand, but
against which our better feelings revolt, especially if it is made to
include multitudes of innocent children, for their unconscious con-
nection with Adam's fall. Calvin himself felt this, and characteristic-
ally called the decree of reprobation a c decree horrible, though never
theless true.52 All he could say was that God's will is inscrutable,
1 * PB2BSOIENTIAM quum triouimus Deo, signijlcamus omnia semper fuisse ac perpetuo ma-
nere sub ejus oculis ; ut ejus notitice nihilfuturum aut prcRteritum, sed omnia sint prcesentia,
et sic quidem prcesentia, ut non ex id&is tantum imaginetur (qualiter nobis obversantur ea
quorum memoriam mens nostra retinet\ sed tanquam ante se posita vere intueatur ac cernat.
TINATIONEM vocamus tstemum Dei decretum^ quo apud se constitutum habuit, quid de unoquoque
homine fieri vellet. Non enim pari conditione creantur omnes; sed aliis vita (sterna, aliis damna-
tio csterna prceordinatur. Itaque, prout in alterutrumfinem quisque conditus est, ita velad vitam,
vel ad mortem pradestinatum dicimus.' Instit. Lib. III. c. 21, § 5 (Opera, VoL II. pp. 682, 683).
Comp. his Articuli deprcedest., first published from an autograph of Calvin, Vol. IX. p. 713.
* ljterum qucero, unde factum est ut tot g&ntes una cum liberis eorum infantibus aterna
morti involveret lapsus Ada absque remedio, nisi quia Deo ita visum est ? Hie obmutescere
§ 57. CALVIN'S WORK. 453
but always holy and unblamable. It is the ultimate ground of all
things, and the highest rule of justice. Foreordination and fore-
knowledge are inseparable, and the former is not conditioned by the
latter, but God foresees what he foreordains. If election were de-
pendent on man's faith and good works, grace would not be free,
and in fact would cease to be grace. Man's holiness is not the cause
or condition, but the effect of God's election. The unequal distribu-
tion of gospel privileges can be traced only to the secret will of God.
All men are alike corrupt and lost in Adam ; some are saved by free
grace, others, who are no worse by nature, reject the gospel. These
are undeniable every-day facts, and admit of no other explanation
within the limits of the present life ; and as to the future world, we
know nothing but what God has revealed to us in the Scriptures.
Calvin carried the doctrine of the divine decrees beyond the Au-
gustinian infralapsarianism, which makes the fall of Adam the object
of a permissive or passive decree, and teaches the preterition rather
than the reprobation of the wicked, to the very verge of supralap-
sarianisra, which traces even the first sin to an efficient or positive
decree, analogous to that of election. But while his inexorable logic-
pointed to this abyss, his moral and religious sense shrunk from the
last inference of making God the author of sin, which would be blas-
phemous, and involve the absurdity that God abhors and justly pun-
ishes what he himself decreed. Hence his phrase, which vacillates
between infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism : * Adam fell, God's
providence having so ordained it; yet he fell by his own guilt'1
oportet tarn dicaces alioqui linguas. Decretum quidem horribile^ fateor; infitiari tamen
nemo poterit quin pransciverit Deus, quern exitum esset habiturus homo, antequam ipsum con-
deret, et ideo prcesciverit, quia decreto suo sic ordinarat. In prcescientiam Dei si quis hie in-
vehatur, temere et inconsulte impingit. Quid enim. qvcpso, est cur reus agatur calestis judex
quia non ignoraverit quodfuturum eratf In prcedestinationem competit, si quid est veljusta
vd speciosce querimonice. Nee absurdum videri debet quod dico, Deum non modo primi hominis
casum, et in eo posterorum ruinam prcevidisse, sed arbitrio quoque suo dispensasse. Ut enim
ad ejus sapientiam pertinetj omnium qucefutura sunt esse praescium, sic ad potentiam, omnia
manu sua regere ac moderari.' Instit. Lib. III. c. 23, § 7 (Vol. II. p. 704).
1 c Lapsus est enim primus homo, quia Dominus ita expedire censu&rat; cur censuerit, nos
latet. Certum tamen est non alit&r censuisse, nisi quia videbat, nominis sui gloriam inde merito
illustrari. Unde vientionem glories Dei audis, illic justitiam cogita. Justum enim esse oportet
quod laudem meretur. Cadit igitur homo, Dei providentia sic ordinante, sed suo vitio cadit. . . .
Propria ergo malitia, quam acceperat a, Domino puram naturam corrupit; sua ruina totam
posteritatem in ej-itivm sewm attraxit.' Instit. Lib. III. c. 23, § 8 (Vol. II. p. 705). The
difference between the supralapsarians and infralapsarians was not agitaUd at the time of
454: THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Calvin defended this doctrine against all objections with consum-
mate skill, and may be said to have exhausted the subject on his side
of the question. His arguments were chiefly drawn from the Script-
ures, especially the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Komans ; but
he unduly stretched passages which refer to the historical destiny of
individuals and nations in this world, into declarations of their eter-
nal fate in the other world; and he escaped the proper force of oppo-
site passages (such as John i. 29; iii. 16 ; 1 John ii. 2; iv. 14; 1 Tim.
ii. 4 ; 2 Pet. iii. 9) by a distinction between the secret and revealed or
declared will of God (vohmtas arcani and voluntas l>enepla<Ati\ which
carries an intolerable dualism into the divine will.
The motive and aim of this doctrine was not speculative, but prac-
tical. It served as a bulwark of free grace, an antidote to Pelagianism
and human pride, a stimulus to humility and gratitude, a source of
comfort and peace in trial and despondency. The charge of favoring
license and carnal security was always indignantly repelled by the
Pauline £ God forbid P It is moreover refuted by history, which con-
nects the strictest Calvinism with the strictest morality.
The doctrine of predestination, in its milder, infralapsarian form,
was incorporated into the Geneva Consensus, the Second Helvetic, the
French, Belgic, and Scotch Confessions, the Lambeth Articles, the Irish
Articles, the Canons of Dort, and the Westminster Standards ; while
the Thirty-nine Articles,1 the Heidelberg Catechism, and other German
Reformed Confessions, indorse merely the positive part of the free
election of believers, and are wisely silent concerning the decree of
reprobation, leaving it to theological science and private opinion.
Supralapsarianisin, which makes unfallen man, or man before his
creation (i. e., a non ens, a mere abstraction of thought), the object of
Calvin, but afterwards during the Arminian controversy in Holland. Both schools appealed
to him. The difference is more speculative than moral and practical. In creating man free,
God created him necessarily temptable and liable to fall, but the fall itself is man's own act
and abuse of freedom. God decreed sin not efficiently but permissively, not as an actual fact
but as a mere possibility, not for its own sake but for the sake of the good or as a negative
condition of redemption. Besides, sin has no positive character, is no created substance,
but it is privative and negative, and consists simply in the abuse of faculties and gifts essen-
tially good.
1 There is a dispute about the precise meaning of Art. XVII. ; but, as Prof. Fisher says
( The Reform, p. 335), * the article can not fairly be interpreted in any other sense than that
of unconditional election ; and the cautions which are appended, instead of being opposed to
this interpretation, demonstrate the correctness of it.'
§ 57. CALVIN'S WORK. 455
God's double foreordination for the manifestation of his mercy in the
elect, and his justice in the reprobate, was ably advocated by JBeza in
Geneva, Gomarus in Holland, Twisse (the Prolocutor of the Westmin-
ster Assembly) in England, Nathaniel Einmons (1745-1840) in New
England, but it never received symbolical authority, and was virtually
or expressly excluded (though not exactly condemned) by the Synod
of Dort, the Westminster Assembly, and even the c Formula Consensus
Helvetica' (1675).1 All Calviuistic Confessions, without exception,
trace the fall to & permissive decree, make man responsible and justly
punishable for sin, and reject, as a blasphemous slander, the charge
that God is the author of sin. And this is the case with all the Cal-
vinistic divines of the present day.2
CALVIN'S DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.
Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper, on which he spent much deep
and earnest thought, is an ingenious compromise between the realism
and mysticism of the Lutheran, and the idealism and spiritualism of
the Zwinglian theory. It aims to satisfy both the heart and the reason.
He retained the figurative interpretation of the words of institution,
and rejected all carnal and materialistic conceptions of the eucharistic
mystery ; but he very strongly asserted, at the same time, a spiritual
real presence and fruition of Christ's body and blood for the nourish-
ment of the soul. He taught that believers, while they receive with
their mouths the visible elements, receive also by faith the spiritual
realities signified and sealed thereby, namely, the benefit of the atoning
sacrifice on the cross, and the life-giving virtue of Christ's glorified
1 Can. IV. : * Ita Deus gloriam suam illustrate constitute, ut decrement, primo quidem
hominemjintegrum creare, TUM ejusdem lapsum PERMITTEEE, ac demum ex lapsis quorundam
miser&n, adeoque eosdem eligere, olios vero in comtpta massa RELINQUBRE, aternoque tan-
dem exitio devovere.7 This does not go beyond the limits of Augustinianism. Van Oosterzee
errs when he says (Christian Dogmatics,Vol. I. p. 452) that the Form. Cons. Hel. asserts the
snpralapsarian view ; while Hodge errs on the other side when he says (Syst . Theol. VoL IL
p. 317) that this document contains ' a formal repudiation of the snpralapsarian view.'
a Dr. Hodge, who best represents the Old School Calvinism in America, rejects snpralap-
jsarianism and defends infralapsarianism, which he defines thus (Syst. TheoLVoLILpp.
'319 and 320) : ' According to the infralapsarian doctrine, God, with the design to reveal his
own glory — that is, the perfections of his own nature — determined to create the world; sec-
ondly, to permit the fall of man ; thirdly, to elect from the mass of fallen men a multitude
whom no man could number as "vessels of mercy ;" fourthly, to send his Son for their re-
demption ; and, fifthly, to leave the residue of mankind, as he left the fallen angels, to suffer
the just punishment of their sins.'
YOL. L— G Q
4-56 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
humanity in heaven, which the Holy Ghost conveys to the soul in a
supernatural manner; while unbelieving or unworthy communicants,
having no inward connection with Christ, receive only bread and
wine to their own judgment. He thus sought to avoid alike the posi-
tive error of Luther and the negative error of Zwingli (whose view
of the Eucharist he even characterized as 'profane'), and to unite the
elements of truth advocated by both in a one-sided and antagonistic
way. Luther and Zwingli always had in inind a corporeal or dimen-
sional presence of the material substance of body and blood, and an
oral manducation of the same by all communicants — which the one
affirmed, the other denied ; Calvin substituted for this the idea of a
virtual or dynamic presence of the psychic life-power and efficacy of
Christ's humanity, and a spiritual reception and assimilation of the
same by the organ of faith, and therefore on the part of believing com-
municants only, through the secret mediation of the Holy Spirit.1
Calvin's doctrine of the Eucharist was substantially approved by
Melanchthon in his later period, although from fear of Luther and the
ultra-Lutherans he never fully committed himself. It passed into all
the leading Reformed Confessions of the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, and must be regarded as the orthodox Eeformed doctrine.
Zwingli's theory, which is more simple and intelligible, has considera-
ble popular currency, but no symbolical authority.2
1 Calvin taught his view of the Eucharist in the first edition of his Institutes (cap. 4, De
Sacramentis, pp, 236 sqq., in the new ed. of the Opera, Vol. I. pp. 118 sqq. ; comp. Ebrard,
Das Dogma v. JieiL Abendmah1,'Vol. II. p. 412), and in the Oonfessio Jidei de eucharistia
(1537); then move fully in the later editions of the Institutes, 1. c. Lib. IV. cap. 17, 18; in
his two Catechisms (1538 and 1542) ; in his admirable tract De Ccsna Domini (first in French,
1541 , then in Latin, 1545 ; see Operand. V. pp. 429-460) ; in the Consensus Tigurinus (1 549),
and he defended it in several polemical treatises against Westphal (1555-1557) and Heshusius
(1561).
8 See, on this whole subject, the very elaborate exposition of Ebrard, Das Dogma v. heil.
Abendmahl, Vol. II. pp. 402-525 ; Baur, Geschichte der christL Kirche, Vol. IV. pp, 398-402;
and Kevin's article on the Reformed Doctrine of the Lord's Supper, in the Mercer sburg Re-
view for fctept. 1850, pp. 421-548 (in defense of his * Mystical Presence'). Dr. Kevin has
clearly and correctly stated Calvin's doctrine of the Eucharist and abundantly fortified it
with quotations from all the symbolical standards, in entire harmony with Ebrard (who
indorsed him in the Studien vnd Kritikeri). After rejecting both the dogma of transub-
stantiation and consubstantiation, he says (p. 429) : * In opposition to this view, the Re-
formed Church taught that the participation of Christ's flesh and blood in the Lord's Sup-
per is spiritual only, and in no sense corporal. The idea of a local presence in the case was
utterly rejected. The elements can not be said to comprehend or include the body of the
Saviour in any sense. It is not there, but remains constantly in heaven, according to the
§ 57. CALVIN'S WORK. 457
Calvin thus combined his high predestinarianism with a high view of
the Church and the Sacraments. Augustine and Luther did the same
to a still greater extent, with more prominence given to the sacramental
idea. It is the prerogative of great minds to maintain apparently op-
posite truths and principles which hold each other in check ; while with
minds less strong and comprehensive, the one principle is apt to rule
out the other. In the Catholic and Lutheran Churches the sacramental
principle gradually overruled the doctrine of absolute predestination;
in the more rigid Calvinistic school, the sacramental principle yielded
to the doctrine of predestination. But the authoritative standards are
committed to both.
CALVIN AS AN EXEGETB,
Among the works which have more or less influenced the Reformed
Confessions we can not ignore Calvin's commentaries. To expound
the Scriptures in books, from the chair, and from the pulpit, was his
Scriptures. It is not handled by the minister and taken into the mouth of the communicant.
The manducation of it is not oral, hut only by faith. It is present in fruition accordingly to
believers only in the exercise of faith ; the impenitent and unbelieving receive only the naked
symbols, bread and wine, without any spiritual advantage to their own souls. Thus we have
the doctrine defined and circumscribed on both sides ; with proper distinction from all that
may be considered a tendency to Rationalism in one direction, and from all that may be
counted a tendency to Romanism in the other. It allows the presence of Christ's person in
the sacrament, including even his flesh and blood, so far as the actual participation of the
believer is concerned. Even the term real presence Calvin tells us he was willing to employ,
if it were to be understood as synonymous with true presence; by which he means a presence
that brings Christ truly into communion with the believer in his human nature as well as in
his divine nature. The word real, however, was understood ordinarily to denote a local, cor-
poral presence, and on this account was not approved. To guard against this, it may be quali-
fied by the word spiritual; and the expression will then be quite suitable to the nature of the
doctrine as it has been now explained. A real presence, in opposition to the notion that
Christ's flesh and blood are not made present to the communicant in any way. A spiritual
real presence, in opposition to the idea that Christ's body is in the elements in a local or cor-
poral manner. Not real simply, and not spiritual simply, but real and yet spiritual at the
same time. The body of Christ is in heaven, the believer on earth ; but by the power of the
Holy Ghost, nevertheless, the obstacle of such vast local distance is fully overcome, so that in
the sacramental act, while the outward symbols are received in an outward way, the very
body and blood of Christ are at the same time inwardly and supernaturaJly communicated to
the worthy receiver, for the real nourishment of his new life. Not that the material particles
of Christ's body are supposed to be carried over, by this supernatural process, into the be-
liever's person. The communion is spiritual, not material. It is a participation of the Sav-
iour's life ; of his life, however, as human, subsisting in a true bodily form. The living
energy, the vivific virtue, as Calvin styles it, of Christ's flesh, is made to flow over into the
communicant, making him more and more one with Christ himself, and thus more and more
an heir of the same immortality that is brought to light in his person.'
£58 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
favorite occupation. His whole theology is scriptural rather than scho-
lastic, and distinguished for the skillful and comprehensive working
up of the teaching of the Bible, as the only pure fountain of revealed
truth and the infallible rule of the Christian faith. As it is system-
atically comprehended in his c Institutes/ and defended in his various
polemical tracts against Sadolet, Pighius, the Council of Trent, Caroli,
Bolsec, Castallio, Westphal, Heshusins, so it is scattered through his
Commentaries on the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, and the principal
books of the Old Testament, especially the Psalms and the Prophets.
He opened this important series of works, during his sojourn at Stras-
burg, by an exposition of the Epistle to the Eomans (1539), on which
his theological system is chiefly based.
He could assert with truth on his death-bed that he never knowingly
twisted or misinterpreted a single passage of the Scriptures, that he
always aimed at simplicity, and restrained the temptation to show
acuteness and ingenuity. He regarded it as the chief object of a
commentator to adhere closely to the text, and to bring out clearly and
briefly the meaning of the writer. He detested irrelevant talk and
diffuseness, and avoided allegorical fancies, which substitute pious im-
position for honest exposition. He combined in a very rare degree all
the necessary hermeneutical qualifications, a fair knowledge of Greek
and Hebrew, sound grammatical tact, thorough sympathy with the
spirit and aim of the Bible, and aptitude for fruitful practical applica-
tion. He could easily enter into the peculiar situation of the Prophets
and Apostles, as though he had been with them in their trials, and
shared their varied experience. He is free from pedantry, and his
exposition is an easy, continuous flow of reproduction. He never
evades difficulties, but frankly meets and tries to solve them.
With all his profound reverence for the Word of God, to which his
reason bows in cheerful obedience, he is not swayed by a peculiar
theory of inspiration or dogmatic prejudice, but shows often remarka-
ble freedom and sagacity in discovering the direct historical import
of prophecies, in distinction from their ulterior Messianic bearing.1 He
1 In his exposition of Gen. iii.15, he understands the ' woman's seed' collectively of the
human family in its perpetual struggle with Satan, which at last culminates in the victory of
Christ, the head of the race. Comp. also his remarks on Isa. iv. 2 ; vi. 3 ; Psa. xxxiii. 6 ;
Matt. ii. 15; Heh. ii. 6-8.
§ 57. CALVIN'S WORK. 459
notices the difference of style and argument in the Second Epistle of
Peter as compared with the first, and in the Epistle to the Hebrews
as compared with the undisputed Pauline Epistles. He never ventured
to explain the mysteries of the Apocalypse. Luther, with an equally
profound reverence and enthusiasm for the Word of God, was even
mud- bolder, and passed sweeping judgments on whole books of the
canon (as the Epistle of James, the book of Esther, and the book o£
Revelation), because he could not find enough of Christ in them. Cal-
vin and his followers retained the Canon in full, but excluded more
rigidly the Apocrypha of the Old Testament
The scholastic Calvinism and Lutheranism of the seventeenth cent-
ury departed from the more liberal view of the Reformers on the
mode and degree of inspiration, and substituted for it a rigid mechan-
ical theory which ignored the human and historical aspect of the
Scriptures, and reduced the sacred writers to mere penmen of the
Holy Ghost. This theory found symbolical expression in the i Formula
Consensus Helvetica' (1675), which advocates even the inspiration of
the Hebrew vowel points, and cuts off all textual criticism.
Upon the whole, Calvin is c beyond all question the greatest exegete
of the sixteenth century,31 which of all centuries was the most fruitful
in this department of sacred learning. Luther was the prince of trans-
lators ; Calvin, the prince of commentators. Augustine and Luther
had occasionally a deeper intuition into the meaning of difficult pas-
sages, and seized on the main idea with the instinct of genius; but
Calvin was more accurate and precise, and more uniformly excellent.
Modern commentators have made great progress in textual criticism
and grammatical and historical exegesis, but do not attain to his re-
ligious depth and fervor. His commentaries have stood the test of
time, and will always be consulted with profit. Scaliger, who was dis-
pleased with all men, said that no scholar had penetrated so deeply into
the meaning of the Prophets as Calvin ; the Roman Catholic critic
Richard Simon admitted that his commentaries would be * useful to
the whole world/ if they were free from declamations against popery ;
and of all older expounders none is more frequently quoted by the
best modern critical scholars than John Calvin.2
1 Eeuss : Geschichte der H. Schriften des N. T., 4th edition, p. 564.
* See the frequent references to him in the Commentaries of Tholuck.
i60 THE CREEDS OS OHRISTENBOM.
CALVIN'S CHURCH POLITY.
The practical and ecclesiastical part of Calvin's work is in some
respects even more important than his theology, and must be briefly
considered in those features which have affected the Calvinistic Con-
fessions. These are the duty of discipline, the principle of lay-repre-
sentation, and the autonomy of the Church in its relation to the State.
In these points Calvinism differs from Lutheranism, and also from
Zwinglianism and Anglicanism. Calvin aimed at a moral and social
as well as a doctrinal and religious reformation, and succeeded in es--
tablishing a model Church, which excited the admiration not only of
sympathizing contemporaries, like Farel and Knox,1 but even of vis-
itors of other creeds long after his death.3 During the eighteenth
Lueke, Bleek, De Wette, Meyer, Alford ; also the Essay of Tholnck, lDie Verdienste Calvin's
alsAuslegerder heil. Schrift,' \ 831 (reprinted in his VermischteSchriften,VoL II. pp. 330-360);
Ed, Reuss, Calvin considtrt comme extgete (Revue, Vol. VI. p. 223) ; and Stahelin, Joh, Calvin,
Vol. I. pp. 182 sqq. Stahelin says (p. 198): 'Der alttestamentliche wie der neutestamentlicke
BibelerklSrer, der Luther aner, wie der Unirte und Reformirte, der wissenschaftliche Exeget, wie
derpopuldre Schriftausleger atte sch&pften undschopfen immer noch aus der Arbeit Calvins bei
weitem das Meiste und Beste, was sie von Schrifterklarung aus dem Reformationszeitalter bei-
bringen.* Comp. also Kahnis, Dogmatik^Ql. II. p. 492, and Herzog, Encykl. Vol. II. p. 528.
1 John Knox, the Reformer of Scotland, who studied at the feet of Calvin, though four
years his senior, in a letter to his friend Locke, in 1556, called the Church of Geneva * the
most perfect school of Christ that ever was in the earth since the days of the Apostles. In
other places I confess Christ to be truly preached ; hut manners and religion to he so sincerely
reformed, I have not yet seen in any other place besides.' Farel wrote, in 1557, that he
never saw Geneva in such excellent condition before, and that he would rather be the last
there than the first any where else. There, it was said, the pure gospel is preached in all
temples and houses (Calvin himself preached daily, every other week) ; there the music of
psalms never ceases ; there hands are folded and hearts lifted up to heaven from morning till
night and from night until morning. The Italian refugee, Bernardino Ochino, gives a most
favorable description of the moral condition of Geneva. Bee his Life by Beurath (1875), p. 169.
9 Dr, Valentine Andreas of Wiirtemberg (a grandson of Jacob Andreas, the chief author of
the Formula of Concord), a great and shining light of the Lutheran Church in Germany
during the desolations of the Thirty-Years' War (d. 1654), visited Geneva in the early part of
the seventeenth century, and held it up as a model of moral purity well worthy of imitation.
lAh ich in Gen/war,* he says in his Respublica Christianopolitana, 1619, 'bemerkte ich etwas
Grosses, woran die Erinn&rung, ja vielmehr, wonach die Sehnsucht nur mit meinem Leben ab-
tterben wird. Nicht nurfindet sich Her das vollkommene Institut einer vollkommenen Republik,
sondern ah eine besondere Zierde und Mittel der Disciplin eine Sittenzucht, nach welcher uber
die Sitten und selbst die geringsten Ueberschreltungen der Burger wSchentlich Untersuchung
angestellt wird, zuerst durch die Viertelsinspectoren, dann durch die Senioren, endlich durch den
Magistrat, je nachdem der Frevel der Sache oder die Verhartung und V&rstockung der Schul-
digen es erfordern. In Folge dessen sind denn alle Fluckworte^ alles Wiirfel- und Kartenspid,
Ueppigkeit) Uebermuth, Zank, Hass, Betrug, Luxus, u. s. zo., ge&chweige denn grSssere Verge-
fiungen, die fast unerhdrt sind, unt&rsagt. Welche herrliche Zierde fur die christliche Religion
solche Sittenreinheit, vor der wir mit alien Tkranen beweinen mussen, dass sie uns fehlt und
§ 57. CALVIN'S WORK. 461
century his severe system of theology and discipline gave way to the
prevailing spirit of Socinianism and the revolutionary spirit of Jean
Jacques Rousseau — the counterpart of Calvin ; but revived in the nine-
teenth century, though in a modified form, so that Geneva has become
a second time the centre of evangelistic labors in the French-speaking
world.1
1. DISCIPLINE. — Calvin's zeal for discipline, especially for the honor of
the Lord's table, in excluding unworthy communicants, was the cause
of his expulsion from Geneva, the cause of his recall from Strasburg,
the condition of his acceptance, the struggle and triumph of his life.
He had a long and fierce conflict with the ferocious politico-religious
party of the Libertines, or c Spirituals,' as they called themselves, who
combined a pantheistic creed with licentiousness and free-lovism, and
anticipated the worst forms of modern infidelity to the extent of de-
claring the gospel a tissue of lies of less value than JEsop's Fables.2
He regarded them as worse enemies of God and the truth than the
Pope. They resorted to personal indignities and every device of in-
timidation ; they named the very dogs of the street after him ; they
one night fired fifty shots before his bedchamber ; they threatened him
in the pulpit ; they approached the communion table as if to seize the
sacred elements, when he cried out, * You may break these limbs and
shed my blood, I would rather die than dishonor the table of my
God,5 whereupon they left the church. On another occasion he
walked into the midst of an excited mob and offered his breast to
fast ganz vernachlassigt wird, und alle Gutgesinnten sich anstrengen, dass sie in's Leben gerufen
werde ! Mich^ wofern mick die Versckiedenheit der Religion nicht abgehalten, hatte die sitt-
liche Uebereinstirmnung hier auf ewig gefesselt, und mit allem Eifer habe ich von da an ge-
trachtet, dass etwas Aehnliches auch unserer Kirche zu Theil wifrde. Nicht gering&r als die
Sffentliche Zucht war auch die hausliche mefnes Hausherrn Scarron ausgezeichnet durck $te-
tige Gebetsubungen, Lecture der heiligen Schrift, Gottesfurcht in Wbrten und Thaten, Mass-
halten in Speise und Kleidung, dass ich eine grdssere Sittenreinheit selbst im vaterlichen
Hause nicht gesehen.9
1 The Haldanes repaid the debt of Scotland to Geneva, and, in connection with Cesar
Malan, gave the first impulse to a revival which resulted in the establishment of a Free
Church, and a school of theology distinguished by the labors of Gaussen, Merle d'Aubigne,
Pronier, La Harpe. The old National Church which Calvin founded has likewise undergone a
salutary change, though the old rigor can never be restored. In point of literary culture and
social refinement, Geneva always retained the first rank among French cities next to Paris.
9 See Calvin's Instructio adv. fanaticam et furiosam sectam Libertinorum, qui se Spir*
itwks vacant, written first in French, 1 544, Opera, Vol. VII. pp. 1 45-252. Comp. Trechsel'i
*rt. Libertiner in Herzog's Real-JEncyM., and Stiihelin, Vol. I. pp. 388 sqq.
462 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
their daggers. It seems incredible that a man constitutionally 'un«
warlike and timorous' should have completely overcome at last such
a powerful and determined opposition, which reached its height in
1553.
The system of discipline which he established saved Geneva from
anarchy, into which the Libertines would have plunged it, and was a
training-school of self-government for other Eeformed Churches ; but
it was carried to unwarrantable excesses in the punishment of religious
and civil offenses, and even innocent amusements, and entered too
much into details of private and domestic life.
2. PRESBYTERIAN AND SYNODICAL CHURCH POLITY. — It rests on the
principle of ministerial equality, and the principle of lay-representation
by elders or seniors in the government of the Church. This polity,
founded by Calvin, was consistently carried out in the Presbyterian
Churches of France, Holland, Scotland, England, and the United States;
but in German Switzerland and Germany it succeeded only partially,
while the Church of England retained the Episcopal hierarchy. Calvin
himself, however, was not an exclusive Presbyterian. He allowed
modifications of the form of government in different countries. He
did not object to Episcopacy or the liturgical worship in England ; he
only protested against the ecclesiastical supremacy of Henry VIII. and
a number of abuses.
3. THE ATJTONOJVTY OF THE CHURCH. — The German Reformers, in-
cluding Zwingli, yielded too much authority to the civil rulers in mat-
ters of religion. Calvin theoretically made the Church independent
in her own sphere, and claimed for her the right of self-government.
This leads consistently to a separation of Church and State, where the
latter is hostile to the former, as was the case in France and to some
extent in Scotland. In recent times the Calvinistic Churches, with-
out changing their creed, tend naturally towards complete freedom
from State control. Yet in practice he had no idea of such a separa-
tion. He regarded the civil and the spiritual power as the two arms of
God's government in the world, which should co-operate together for
the same end—the glory of God and the good of society : the Church
by infusing a religious spirit into the State, the State by protecting and
promoting the interests of the Church. He established, after the
model of the Old Testament, a theocracy at Geneva, and governed it
§ 57. CALVIN'S WORK. 463
by tacit consent as long as he lived, presiding over the ' Venerable
Company' of Pastors, and exerting a molding influence upon the civil
legislation of the little republic of about 20,000 inhabitants.1
Bossuet, Mohler, and other Eoman Catholic divines saw in this a
return to the hierarchy, with Calvin as its pope. He has sometimes
been compared to Hildebrand; and Kampschulte remarks that the
dominion of the spiritual sovereignty was more thoroughly carried
out in Geneva than by the Gregories and Innocenses in the Middle
Ages. But Calvin's theocracy differed essentially from the Roman
Catholic by its popular (though by no means democratic) basis : it was
not priestcraft ruling over statecraft, but a self-governing Christian
commonwealth. Geneva was an aristocratic republic, ruled by the
clergy and the people in orderly representation and friendly co-opera-
tion. The highest civil and executive power was lodged in the c Little
Council' of twenty-four syndics, the highest ecclesiastical power in
the * Consistory,' composed (at first) of six pastors and double that
number of lay-elders.2
RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
Unfortunately Calvin inherited from the Theodosian Code and the
Catholic Church the worst feature of the theocratic system, name-
ly, the principle of appeal to the secular arm for the temporal, and,
if necessary, capital punishment of spiritual offenses, as being offenses
against the order and peace of society. This principle is inconsistent
with liberty of conscience (which Beza called a diabolical dogma), and
justifies all manner of persecution, as duty or policy may suggest.
With his intense antagonism to the papal tyranny, he might have
thrown off this relic of the Middle Ages, if it had not been for his
1 Kampschulte, Vol. I. p. 471 : 'Der Grundgedanke, von dem der Gesetzgeber Genfs aus-
geht, ist die Theokratie. Calvin will in Genf den Gottesstaat herstellen. Nur Einer ist ikm
Konig und Herr in Staat undKirche : Gott im Himmel. In seinem Namen herrscht jede ir-
dische GewalL Gottes HerrscherruJwi zu verkundigen^ seine Majestat zu verherrlichen, semen
heiligen Wilhn zur Ausfuhrung zu bringen und seine JSekenner zu heiligen, ist die gemeinsame
Aufgnbe von Staat und KircheS Comp. Stahelin, Vol. I. pp. 319 sqq.
* Gnizot says of this ecclesiastical organization (p. 265) : * In its origin it was a profoundly
Christian and evangelical system ; it was republican in many of its fundamental principles
and practices, and at the same time it recognized the necessity of authority and order, and
originated general and permanent rules of discipline.' Michelet calls the Geneva of Calvin
'the city of the spirit, founded hy Stoicism on the rock of predestination ;' and Kampschulte
(p. 430), ' the metropolis of a grand, sublime, and terrible idea.'
£64 THE CREEDS OP CHRISTENDOM.
conviction of the perpetual validity of the Mosaic civil code and his
theocratic theory. He thought that the hurniug of innocent people
by Romanists was no good reason why Protestants should spare the
guilty.
It was the misfortune of Calvin that this false theory, which con-
founds two distinct spheres and ignores the spiritual nature of Christ's
kingdom, was brought to its severest test and explosion under his own
eye, and to the perpetual injury of his fair fame. We mean, of course,
the terrible theological tragedy of the Spanish physician Michael
Servetus, a restless fanatic, a pantheistic pseudo-reformer, and the most
audacious and even blasphemous heretic of the sixteenth century, who
attacked the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as tritheistic and atheistic,
as the greatest monstrosity, and the source of all corruption in the
Church. After being condemned to death, and burned in effigy by the
Boman Catholic authorities in France,1 he fled to Geneva, was arrested,
tried, and executed at the stake, for heresy and blasphemy, by the civil
government, with the full consent of Calvin, except that he made an
ineffectual plea for a mitigation of the punishment (by a substitution
of the sword for the fagot).2
Severely as we must condemn the great Eeformer, from the stand-
point of our modern civilization, for this the saddest mistake of his
life, it is evident that even here he acted consistently and conscien-
tiously, and that the blame attaches not to his personal character (for
towards sincere and earnest heretics, like Lsslius Socinus, he showed
1 See the acts of the process of Servetus at Vienne and Lyons (first published by the Abbe*
d'Artigny, Paris, 1 749), in Calvin's Ojwa., Vol. VIII. pp. 833 sqq.
4 For full discussion of the trial and execution of Servetus and Calvin's part in them,
see Schaff : Ch. Hist., VII., 680-793. A large boulder has been placed by Swiss and French
Protestants at the spot where the Spaniard suffered, to serve as an expiatory monument,
expressing regret for the tragedy and at the same time respect for Calvin. On the one
side is the record that Michael Servetus of ViHeneuve, Aragon, b.f Sept. 29, 1511, was
executed there, Oct. 26, 1553, and on the other the inscription: Fus respectueux et recon-
naissante de Catoin, noire grand Rejormateur, mate condamnant une erreur qui fut cdle de
son si&cle et ferm&nent attaches a la liberte de conscience selon les wais principes de la Rtfor-
mation et de I'Evangile nous avons eleoe* ce monument expiatoire, le $7 Octobre, 190S. (We,
respectful children of Calvin, our great Reformer, but condemning au error which was
the error of his age and firmly attached to liberty of conscience according to the true
principles of the Reformation and the Gospel, have erected this expiatory monument,
Oct. 27, 1903). jCalvin was caAed by Rena& " the mos;fc Chrjsibian man of . bis age."— -Ep,
§ er. CALVIN'S WORK. 465
marked courtesy and leniency), but to his system, and not to his system
alone, but to the inherited system of his age, which had not yet
emerged from the traditions of the Eomish pseudo-theocracy. The
burning of Servetus was fully approved by all the Reformers — Beza,
Farel, Bucer, Bullinger, even the mild and gentle Melanchthon.1 If
Romanists condemned Calvin, they did it from hatred of the man, and
condemned him for following their own example even in this particu-
lar case. The public opinion of Christendom at that time and down to
the eighteenth century justified the right and duty of civil government
not only to protect but to support orthodoxy, and to punish heresy by
imprisonment, exile, and death ; and this right was exercised, with more
or less severity, in all countries of Europe, and even in Puritan New
England during the colonial period. Protestants differed from Ro-
manists only in their definition of heresy, and by greater moderation
in its punishment. Protestants complained of being innocently per-
secuted in France, Spain, Holland, and under the bloody Mary in
England; and Catholics raised the same complaint against the sys-
tematic cruelty of the penal code of Queen Elizabeth, which looked
to the titter extermination of Romanism and Puritanism alike.
A protest against the principle of persecution, first raised by Jus-
tin Martyr and Tertullian in the early Church, but forgotten as soon
as the Church ascended the throne of the Caesars, was revived by
heretical Anabaptists and Socinians, who themselves suffered from it,
without having a chance to persecute their persecutors, and who thus
became martyrs of religious freedom. All honor to them, even to Ser-
vetus, for the service they rendered under this view to future genera-
tions. Liberty is the sweet fruit of bitter persecution. During the
seventeenth century this feeble and isolated protest was considerably
strengthened by Arminians, Baptists, and Quakers for the same reason ;
and during the eighteenth century Christian liberality and philanthro-
py on the one hand, and religious indifferentism and infidelity on the
other, made such progress that the doctrinal foundations of persecu-
tion were gradually undermined, and toleration (as it was first pat-
1 It may be questioned whether Zwingli and Luther, had they lived, would have sanctioned
the execution; their impulses at least were more liberal. With all his polemic violence
in argument, Luther disapproved of the shocking cruelties against the Anabaptists in Ger-
many, and said that 'on this plan, the hangman would b« the best theologian/
166 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
ronizingly and condescendingly called, and is still called in despotic
countries) became the professed policy of civilized governments. Bu*
this is not enough : all Christian governments should legally recognize
and protect liberty of conscience, as an inherent and inalienable right
of every immortal soul; and this requires for its full realization a
peaceful separation of Church and State, or an equality of all de-
nominations before the law.
In view of this radical revolution of public opinion on the subject
of persecution, it becomes a practical question whether those sections
of the Protestant confessions of faith which treat of the relation of
Church and State should not be reconstructed and adapted to the
principle of religious freedom, all the more since the Papal Syllabus
has consistently condemned it, as being one of the errors of modern
times. Such a change, at all events, is necessary in the United States,
and has actually been made in the American revision of the Thirty-
Nine Articles, and of the Westminster Confession.
The principle of religious liberty does not necessarily, as was for-
merly supposed, imply indifference to truth or a weakening of intensity
of conviction. It follows legitimately from a sharper discrimination
between the secular and spiritual sphere, between the Old and the
New Testaments, between the law of Moses and the gospel of Christ,
and from the spirit and example of Him who said, ' My kingdom is
not of this world,' and who commanded the carnal-minded Peter to
i put up his sword into the sheath.7 God alone is Lord of the con-
science, and allows no one with impunity to interfere with his sov-
ereign right. Keligion flourishes best in the atmosphere of freedom,
and need not fear error as long as truth is left free to combat it
It is nevertheless true that Calvinism, by developing the power of
self-government and a manly spirit of independence which fears no
man, though seated on a throne, because it fears God, the only sover-
eign, has been one of the chief agencies in bringing about this prog-
ress, and that civil and religious liberty triumphed first and most
completely in Calvinistic countries. ' Calvin,' says Guizot, 'is un-
doubtedly one of those who did most towards the establishment of
religious liberty.'
§ 58. THE CATECHISM OF GENEVA, 1536 AND 1541. £67
§ 58. THE CATECHISM OF GENEVA. AD. 1536 AND 1541.
Literature.
CALVLNI Opera, ed. Baum, Cunitz, and Reuss, Vol. V. (1866), pp. 313-362 (the first draft, or Catechtemus
prior, 1538) ; Vol. VI. (1S6T), pp. 1-160 (the second catechism, in French and Latin).
NIBMEYEE, pp. 123-190 (the Latin text of the Larger Catechism, together with the prayers and litur-
gical forms) ; comp. his Proleg. pp. xxxvii.-xli.
The German text of the Larger Catechism in BECK (Vol. L pp. 208-292), and BOOKEL (pp. 127-172),
An English translation, probably by the same Marian exiles who prepared the * Geneva Bible,* ap-
peared first at Geneva, 1556 ; then in Edinburgh, 1564; and is reprinted in DTJN LOP'S Cwrfe^siow, Vol.H.
pp. 139-272 ; also in HOBA.TIUS BONAB : Catechisms of the Scotch Reformation (Lond. I860), pp. 4r-88 It is
divided into fifty-five Sundays.
STAHELIN : Joh. Calvin, Vol. L pp. 124 sqq.
The commanding influence of Calvin's theology and Church polity
is manifest in all the leading confessions of the Beformed Churches,
especially the French, Dutch, and Scotch, also in the Lambeth Arti-
cles, the Irish Articles, and the Westminster Standards. But the con-
fessions which he himself prepared were intended, like those of Zwin-
gli, for local and temporary rather than general purposes, and possess
only a secondary authority. These are the Geneva Catechism, the
Zurich Consensus, and the Geneva Consensus.1
Calvin, like Luther and other Eef oriners, did not consider it beneath
his dignity, but rather a duty and a privilege, to utilize his profound
learning for the benefit of children by adapting it to their simplicity.
He made general education and catechetical instruction the basis of
the republic.2
During his first residence at Geneva (1536), he prepared a cate-
chism, in the French language, together with a form of discipline, as
a basis of instruction for the newly reformed Church of that city.3 It
is a brief summary of the Christian religion, a popular extract from
his * Institutes.* It treats, in fifty-eight sections (but not in the form
of question and answer), of the religious constitution of man, the dis-
tinction between false and true religion, the knowledge of God, the
1 They were not included in the Corpus et Syntagma Confesstonum, which appeared in
Geneva.
3 George Bancroft calls Calvin 'the father of popular education, the inventor of the system
of free schools.' — Liter, and Histor. Miscellanies, p. 406.
3 The Latin translation has heen recently republished by the Strasburg editors from a BSsle
edition : ' Catechismus, sive Christiana Religionis institutio, communibus renatce nuper in JEvan-
geUo Genevensis Ecclesice suffragiis recepta et vulgari quidem prius idiomate, nunc vero Latine
etiam . . . in lucem edita. Joanne Calvino autore. Basilea>, A. M.D.XXXVIIIS See
the Prolegomena to Opera, Vol. V. pp. xli. sqq. The Trench original, which was probably
printed at Geneva. 1537, seems to have been lost.
±68 THE CREEDS OF CHBISTENDOM.
original state of man, free-will, sin and death, the way of salvation, the
law of God, the Ten Commandments, the sum of the law (Matt. xxii.
37), the aim of the law, faith in Christ, election and predestination, the
nature of faith, justification and sanctification, repentance and regener-
ation, faith and good works, an exposition of the articles of the Apos-
tles' Creed, and the petitions of the Lord's Prayer, the sacraments of
Baptism and the Lord's Supper, the Church, human traditions, excom-
munication, and the civil magistrate. Then follows a short confession
of faith, in twenty-one articles, extracted from the Catechism, which
was to be binding upon all the citizens of Geneva — probably the first
instance of a formal pledge to a symbolical book in the history of the
Reformed Church.1
After his return from Strasburg Calvin rewrote the Catechism on
a larger scale, and arranged in questions and answers : the catechist
drawing out the information, and the pupil or child seeming to teach
the master. It was prepared in great haste, for the printer demand-
ed copy without giving him time to revise it. He often desired to
perfect the book, but found no time.2 It appeared in French, 1541
or 1542,3 in Latin, 1545,4 and very often. It was also translated into
Italian (1551 and 1556), Spanish (1550), English (1556), German, Dutch,
Hungarian, even into Greek and Hebrew.5 It was used for a long
1 * Confessio Fidei, in quam jurare cives omnes Genevenses et qui sub dmtatis ejus ditione
agunt, jussi sunt: excerpta e Catechismo quo utitur JEcclesia GenevensisS It begins with the
Word of God and ends with the magistrate. It seems to have been drawn up before the
Catechism, immediately after the disputation at Lausanne, for Beza says : ( Tune edita est a
Calvino Christiana doctrines qucedam veluti formula, vixdum emergent^ e papatus sordibus
Genevensi, Ecclesice accommodata. Addidit etiam Catechismum,' etc.
3 So he said himself on his death-bed; see Stahelin, Vol. II. p. 467.
3 iLe Oatechistne de VEglise de Geneve, cest a dire k Formulaire oTinstruire ks enfans en
la Ghrestiente* fait en maniere de dialogue ou le ministre interrogue et f enfant respond. ' The
oldest copy extant was found in the ducal library at Gotha, printed 1545. On other editions,
see the Prolegomena to Opera, Vol. VI.
* * CATECHISMUS ECCLESI JB GENEVENSIS, hoc est, Formula erudiendi pueros in doctrina
Christi. Autore Joanne Calvino.9 The Preface to the Latin edition is dated * Geneves,
4 Calendas Decemlris, 1545.* The Strasburg editors give the French and Latin texts of 1545
in parallel columns, Vol. VL pp. 8-159. In many editions Calvin's Liturgy is added.
5 Beza, in Vita, ad ann. 1541: 'Scripsit Catechismum Gallice et Latine, ab illo priore mi-
nime discrepantem, sed multo auctiorem, et in qucestiones ac responsiones distributum : quern
merito nobis liceat admirandum quoddam opus vocare, tantopere plurimis etiam exteris populis
probatum, utnon modo vernaculis plurimis linguis, utpote Germanica, Anglica, Scotica, Belgica,
Hispanica, sed etiam Hebraice ab Immanuele Tremellio Judoso Christiano, et Greece ab HenricQ
Stephano legatur elegantissime conversus.1 The title of the Greek translation is, Sroixetwtnc
r^fc Xp«maj/fcJv 7rioT€ftic> ^ ~&.arnx^]j.QQ, Kara rf* iraXaiav ovopaffiav. Greece et Latine, 1563.
§ 58. THE CATECHISM OF GENEVA, 1536 AND 1541. 469
time in Reformed Churches and schools, especially in France and
Scotland, and served a good purpose in promoting an intelligent piety
and virtue on the solid basis of systematic Biblical instruction. Edu-
cational religion, which grows with our growth, is the most substantial,
and must ever be the main reliance of the Church.
The object of this work, as explained in the preface, was to restore
the catechetical instruction of the ancient Church, so sadly neglected
by the Papists, who substituted for it the ceremony of confirmation,
and to secure greater unity of faith and doctrine in the scattered Re-
formed congregations. Calvin showed his churchly tact in making the
Apostles' Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord's Prayer the
basis. The leading idea is man's relation to God, and his heavenly
destination. The whole is divided into five parts, as follows : 1. Of
Faith — an exposition of the Creed (which here, as in the Heidelberg
Catechism, precedes the Ten Commandments, while in the earlier
Catechism of Calvin the opposite order was observed) j1 2. Of the Law,
or the Ten Commandments ; 3. Of Prayer ; 4. Of the Word of God ;
5. Of the Sacraments. In the French edition the Catechism is divided
into fifty-five lessons, for the fifty-two Sundays of the year and the
three great festivals — a method followed in the later editions of the
Heidelberg Catechism.2
Calvin's Catechism is fuller than Luther's, but less popular and
childlike. It prepared the way and furnished material for a num-
ber of similar works, which have gradually superseded it, especially
the Anglican (JsTowell's), the Heidelberg, and the Westminster Cate-
chisms. The Anglican Catechism is much shorter and more church-
ly in taking its starting-point from Baptism. The first question of
the Westminster Catechism makes the glory of God s the chief end
of man,' and is a happy condensation of the first three questions of
1 He made the Apostles' Creed the basis of his 'Catechism* and 'Institutes, 'not because he
believed it to be literally the product of the Apostles, but because it is a faithful summary
of their teaching ('ex eorum scHptisJideUter collecta,' 'tire" de la pure doctrine apostolique'\
and a formula which best expresses the common Christian faith Q formula confessionis, quam
inter se communem habent Christiani omnes*).
3 The distribution into Sundays appears first in the French edition of 1548, which has a
* Table pour trouver k lieu du Catechisme gue U Mini&tre expligue un chascun DimancheS See
Opera, Vol. VI. Proleg. p. x. The First Book of Discipline of Scotland (1560), ch. 1 1 , directs the
ministers to teach the children Calvin's Catechism — "the most perfect that ever yet was used
in the Kirk' — every Sunday afternoon in the presence of the people. See Bonar, 1. c. pp. 3, 4.
470 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Calvin.1 The Heidelberg Catechism begins more subjectively with
'the only comfort of man in life and iu death,' herein betraying its
German origin ; but this also was suggested by the next questions of
Calvin concerning the highest good or felicity of man and the firm
foundation of our salvation. Otherwise the Heidelberg Catechism ad-
heres to the order of the Genevan more closely than the Westminster,
by retaining, as a basis of the dogmatic section, the Apostles' Creed
(which the Westminster Catechism merely adds as an appendix).2
Guizot gives the preference to Calvin's Catechism over those modern
ones which begin with speculative questions on the nature and exist-
ence of God. ' Calvin/ he says,3 ' proceeds in a very different manner ;
he does not seek God — he knows him, possesses him, and takes God as
his starting-point. God the Creator, man his creature, and the relation
of man to God — these form the fundamental facts and natural basis of
the history, doctrines, and laws of Christianity. Calvin's Catechism
commences thus : " What is the chief end of human life 2 " " To know
God." And this first assertion is the mainspring of all the principles
and religious duties which are afterwards presented, not as the dis-
coveries of the human mind, but as communications made by God in
order to meet man's aspirations, and enable him to regulate his life.
It is neither a scientific method, nor is the Catechism a philosophical
work ; it contains the assertion of a real, immemorial, universal, and
historical fact, and explains the consequences of that fact. It is the
1 CALVIN'S CATECHISM.
Min. Quis humancB vitce prcecipuus est finis?
Puer. UT DEUM, A QUO CONDITI SUNT HO-
MINES, IPSI NOVERINT.
WESTMINSTER SHORTER CATECHISM.
1st Ques. What is the chief end of man?
Ans. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and
to enjoy him forever.
Min. Quid causa habes, cur hoc dicasf
Puer. QUONIAM NOS IDEO CREAVIT ET COL-
LOCAVIT IN HOC MUNDO, QUO GLORIFICETUR
TS KOBIS. ET SANE VITAM NOSTRAM, CUJUS
IPSE EST INITIUM, -2EQUUM EST IN EJUS GLO-
"RTAM REFERRI.
Min. Quod vero est swnmum bonum hominis?
Puer. ILLUD IPSUM.
9 Comp. Karl Sudhof : Olevianus und Ursinus (1857), pp. 88 sqq. CaMn is also respon-
sible for the unhistorical interpretation of Christ's descent into Hades, by which he under-
stood the anticipation of the sufferings of hell in Gethsemane and on the Cross. This is
quite inconsistent with the position of this article between the burial and the resurrection.
The Westminster Catechism falls into another error by making it mean simply, 'He continued
in the state of the dead and under the power of death till the third day.'
3 St. Louis and Calvin, p. 34a
§ 59. THE CONSENSUS OF ZURICH, 1549. 471
natural and legitimate method of imparting religious instruction, in-
herent in the very first principle of all religion ; it is especially in har-
mony with the origin and history of Christianity, and no one has ever
recognized its power or proved its efficacy more fully than Calvin.'
§ 59. THE CONSENSUS OF ZURICH. A.D. 1549.
Literature,
I. CONSENBIO MTTTTTA IN BE BACBAMENTABIA ministroritm TIGUBIN^E ECCLTCBL<E et J. Calvini ministri
GBNEVENSIB EOOLESUB jam nunc ab iptis autoribus edita. Tignri, 1549. In Opera, Vol. VII. pp. 689-T4S.
Comp. Proleg. pp. xliv. sqq. DEFENSIO sance et orthodoxce de sacramentis eorumque vi, fine, et usu, et
fructu quam pastores et ministri Tigurince eccteice et Genevensis antehac brevi Conxensionis mutuce
formula complexi aunt. Johanne Calvino autore, Tignri, 1556, in Opera, Vol. IX. pp. 1-40. The same
volume contains the later eucharistic tracts of Calvin against the attacks of Joachim Westphal (1556
and 155T) and Tilemann Heshusius (1561).
The Consensus Tigurimts with Calvin's Exposition is also reprinted in Niemeyer's Collect. pp.!91-21T ;
a German translation (in part) in Beck and Bockel.
II. On the History of the Zurich Consensus, see Calvin's correspondence with Bnllinger, 1548 and 1549,
Opera, Vols. XII. and XIIL HTTNDBSHA&EBT : Conflicte des ZiDinglianismustetc. ; HENRY: Calvin, Vol. H.
pp.128 sqq.; EBBABD: Das Dogma voni heil. Abendmahl, VoL H. pp. 484-524; PESTALOZZI: Bullinger,
pp. 373-38T ; STAHELIN : Calvin, Vol. II. pp. 112-124.
In the sacramental controversy — the most violent, distracting, and
unprofitable in the history of the Reformation — Calvin stood midway
between Luther and Zwingli, and endeavored to unite the elements of
truth on both sides, in his theory of a spiritual real presence and frui-
tion of Christ by faith.1 This satisfied neither the rigid Lutherans nor
the rigid Zwinglians. The former could see no material difference
between Calvin and Zwingli, since both denied the literal interpreta-
tion of ' this is my body,' and a corporeal presence and manducation.
The latter suspected Calvin of leaning towards Lutheran consubstan-
tiation and working into the hands of Bucer, who had made himself
obnoxious by his facile compromises and ill-concealed concessions to
the Lutheran view in the Wittenberg Concordia (1536).
The wound was reopened by Luther's fierce attack on the Zwin-
glians (1545), and their sharp reply. Calvin was displeased with both
parties, and counselled moderation. It was very desirable to harmo-
nize the teaching of the Swiss Churches. Bullinger, who first ad-
vanced beyond the original Zwinglian ground, and appreciated the
deeper theology of Calvin, sent him his book on the Sacraments, in.
manuscript (1546), with the request to express his opinion. Calvin-
did this with great frankness, and a degree of censure which at first
1 See § 57, pp. 455 sqq.
VOL. L— H H
472 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
irritated Bullinger. Then followed a correspondence and personal
conference at Zurich, which resulted in a complete union of the Oal-
vinistic and Zwinglian sections of the Swiss Churches on this vexed
subject The negotiations reflect great credit on both parties, and
reveal an admirable spirit of frankness, moderation, forbearance, and
patience, which triumphed over all personal sensibilities and irrita-
tions.1
The first draft of the Consensus Tigurinus, from November, 1548,
consists of twenty-four brief propositions drawn up by Calvin, with
annotations by Bullinger, to which Calvin responded in January, 1549.
They assert that the Sacraments are not in and of themselves effective
and conferring grace, but that God, through the Holy Spirit, acts
through them as means ; that the internal effect appears only in the
elect ; that the good of the Sacraments consists in leading us to Christ,
and being instruments of the grace of God, which is sincerely offered
to all ; that in baptism we receive the remission of sins, although this
proceeds primarily not from baptism, but from the blood of Christ;
that in the Lord's Supper we eat and drink the body and blood of
Christ, not, however, by means of a carnal presence of Christ's hu-
man nature, which is in heaven, but by the power of the Holy Spirit
and the devout elevation of our soul to heaven.2
In the month of March Calvin sent twenty Articles to the Synod
of Berne,3 but in this canton there was strong opposition to Calvin's
rigorism, which subsided only after his death.4
In May, 1549, he had, in company with Farel, a personal interview
with Bullinger in Zurich at his cordial invitation, and drew up the
Consensus as it now stands, in Twenty-six Articles. It was published
in 1551 at Zurich and at Geneva.5 It contains the Calvinistic doc-
trine, adjusted as nearly as possible to the Zwinglian in its advanced
form, but with a disturbing predestinarian restriction of the sacra-
1 See the details in Ebrard, Pestalozzi, and Stahelin, who speak in the highest terms of the
truly Christian spirit which characterized the two leaders of the Swiss Reformation.
a Ojpera, Vol. VII. pp. 693 sqq.
3 Ibid. pp. 717 sqq.
* See Hundeshagen, and Stahelin, Vol. II. pp. 125 sqq. Calvin complained on his death-
bed of the ill-treatment he had repeatedly received from the government of Berne.
* Qpera, Vol. VII. pp. 733 sqq. These Twenty-six Articles alone are given, with Calvin's
Exposition of 1554, in Niemeyer's Collect™, pp. 191-217.
§ 59. THE CONSENSUS OF ZURICH, 1549. ±13
mental grace to the elect.1 The truth of the Zwinglian view is fully
acknowledged in opposition to transubstantiation aud consubstantia-
tioiij but the real life union with Christ in the sacrament is as clearly
asserted, and made still more plain in the ' Exposition1 of the Consen-
sus which Calvin wrote four years afterwards (1554). 'The Sacra-
ments,' he declares, c are helps and media (adminicula et media), by
which we are either inserted into the body of Christ, or being so in-
serted coalesce with it more and more, till he unites us with himself
in full in the heavenly life. . . . The Sacraments are neither empty
figures, nor outward badges merely of piety, but seals of the promises
of God, attestations of spiritual grace for cherishing and confirming
faith, organs also by which God efficaciously works in his elect.52
The Consensus was adopted by the Churches of Zurich, Geneva,
St. Gall, Schaffhausen, the Grisons, Keuchatel, and, after some hesita-
tion, by Basle, and was favorably received in France, England, and parts
of Germany. Melanchthon declared to Lavater (Bullinger's son-in-law)
that he then for the first time understood the Swiss, and would never
again write against them ; but he erased those passages of the Con-
sensus which made the efficacy of the sacrament depend on election.
While the Consensus brought peace and harmony to the Swiss
Churches, it was violently assailed by Joachim Westphal, of Hamburg
(1552), in the interest of the ultra-Lutheran party in Germany, and
became the innocent occasion of the second sacramental war, which
has been noticed in the section on the Formula Coneordise.3
1 Art. XVI. 'Prceterea sedulo docemus, Deum non promiscue vim suam exserere in omnibus
qui sacramenta recipiunt: sed tantum in electis. Nam quemadmodum non olios infidem illu-
minat, quam quos prceordinavit ad vitam, it a arcana Spiritus sui virtute efficit, utpercipiant
ekcti quod offerunt sacramenta.' Yet this is qualified in Art. XVIII. 'Cerium quidem est,
offeri communiter omnibus Christum cum suis donis, nee hominum infidelitate labefactari Dei
veritatem, quin semper vim suam retineant sacramenta : sed non omnes Christi et donorum ejus
sunt capaces. Itaque ex Dei parte nihil mutatur: quantum vero ad homines spectat, quisque
profidei sues mensura accipit.' See the lengthy discussion of Ebrard, 1. c. pp. 503 sqq. He
fully adopts the doctrine of the Consensus with the exception of the predestinarian restriction,
which, however, is inseparable from the Calvinistic system, as formerly held by Ebrard him-
self.
* 'Sacramenta neque inanes essejiguras neque externa tantum pietatis insignia, sedpromis-
sionum Dei sigilla, testimonia spirifalis gratia ad fidem fovendam et confirmandam^ item
organa esse quibus efficaciter agit Deus in suis electis, ideoque^ licet a rebus signatis distincta
sint signa, non tamen disjungi ac separarij etc. Niemeyer, p. 204.
s See pp. 279 sqq. A full account of the controversy of Calvin with Westphal is given by
Ebrard, Vol. II. pp. 525 sqq., and by Nevin in the Mercersburg Heview for 1850, pp. 486 sqq.
474 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
§ 60. THE CONSENSUS OF GENEVA. A.D. 1552.
Literature.
I DE JETEBNA DEI PREDESTINATION E qua in salutem alios ex hominibus elegit, olios stto exitio reliquitt
item, de providentia qua, res httmatias gubernat, CONSENSUS pastorum GENEVENSIS Ecclevice a Jo. Calvim
easpositua. Geneva, 1552. Reprinted in the Opera, Vol. VIII. (18TO), pp. 249-306. Also in NIEMBYBB.
pp. 218-310. The German text in BOOKEL (Die Genfer Ueberemkunft), pp. 182-2SO.
H. AT-TCT. SOHWEIZEB: Die Protest. Centraldogmen tier fieform. Kirche, Vol. I. (1854), pp. 180-238 ; HENB*!
Vol. II. p. 285 ; Vol. in. pp. 40 sqq. ; STAHEUS*, Vol. II. (1863), pp. 2T1-308, and Vol. L pp. 411 sqq.
Calvin's doctrine of predestination1 met with strong opposition, which
drew from him some able defenses.
The first assault came from an eminent Roman Catholic divine,
Albertus Pighius, 1542, who taught the freedom of will almost to the
extent of Pelagianism, and conditioned predestination by foreknowl-
edge.2 Calvin wrote a reply to the first part (1543), and dedicated
it to Melanchthon, who in the second article of the Augsburg Con-
fession had expressed the Augustinian doctrine of total depravity.3
A more troublesome opponent was Jerome Bolsec, formerly a Car-
melite monk from Paris, then a fugitive Protestant and physician at
Geneva and Lausanne, a restless and turbulent spirit. He denounced
Calvin's doctrine of predestination as godless and blasphemous, and
tried to break down his influence, but was publicly refuted and ad-
monished, and at last expelled from Geneva (1551) and from Berne
(1555). He returned to France and to the Eoman Church (1563), and
thirteen years after Calvin's death he took cruel revenge by a shame-
less and malignant libel (1577 and 1588), long since refuted.4
These attacks were the occasion of the Consensus Genevensis, which
1 See § 57, pp. 450 sqq.
a Pighius of Campeu (d. at Utrecht, Dec. 26, 1542) wrote against Luther and Calvin De
libero hominis arbitrio et divina gratia^ Colon. 1542, dedicated to Cardinal Sadolet. This
book was first greatly lauded by the Romanists, but after the Council of Trent had fixed its
more cautious doctrine of free-will and condemned semi-Pelagianism, it was put by the Span-
ish Inquisition on the Index of forbidden books.
* Defensio sance et orthodoxce doctrines de servitute et liberatione humani arbitrii adv.
calumnms A. PigJiii Campensis, Genevse, 1 543. Qpera, Vol. VI. pp. 225-404.
* On Bolsec, see Bade, Diet.; Henry, Calv. Vol. III. pp. 48 sqq.; Trechsel, Antitrinz-
tarier, Vol. L pp. 185 sqq. ; Baum, Beza, Vol. I. pp. 160 sqq. ; and especially Schweizer, I. c.
pp. 205-238. It is a sad fact that the blind zeal of modern Romanism has repeatedly re-
published the libel of Bolsec, with its wicked and absurd charges of theft, adultery, unnat-
ural crimes, blasphemy, insanity, and invocations of the devil. See Audin's biography of
Calvin, which has gone through six editions in French (also translated into German and
English), and several popular polemic tracts, published by the Society of St. Francis of Sales,
of which Stahelin gives some specimens, Vol. I. p. 414.
§ 60. THE CONSENSUS OF GENEVA, 1552. 4.75
first appeared at Geneva, 1552, in the name of the pastors of that city.
Calvin contemptuously alludes in the preface to Bolsec, but without
naming him, and directs his attack mainly against Pighius (whose
doctrine of predestination he had not noticed in the previous work),
and a certain Georgius of Sicily (whom he calls an ignorant monk,
more deserving of contempt than persecution). The Consensus is, in
fact, the second part of his controversial treatise against Pighius (the
first being devoted to free-will). It is an elaborate theological argument
for the doctrine of absolute predestination, as the only solid ground of
comfort to the believer, but is disfigured by polemical violence, and
hence unsuited for a public confession. It received the signatures of
the pastors of Geneva on account of the disturbances created by Bolsec,
but was not intended to be binding for future generations. Beyond
Geneva it acquired no symbolical authority. The attempt to enlist the
civil government in favor of this dogma created dissatisfaction and op-
position in Berne, Basle, and Zurich. Several of Calvin's old friends
withdrew ; Bullinger counseled peace and moderation ; Fabri, of Neu-
chatel, declared the decree of reprobation untenable; Melanchthon,
who in the mean time had changed his view on free-will and predes-
tination, wrote to Peucer that Geneva attempted to restore Stoic fa-
talism, and imprisoned men for not agreeing with Zeno.1
The dissatisfaction was increased and the matter complicated by the
trial and execution of Servet which soon followed (1553), and by the
controversy with Castellio, which involved likewise the doctrine of
predestination, together with the question of inspiration and the canon.
Sebastian Castellio2 (1515-1563), a convert from Romanism, a classical
philologist of unusual ability and learning, an advocate of toleration,
1 Bullinger prepared, March, 1553, for an English friend (Barthol. Traheron), a tract, whose
title indicates his partial dissent from Calvin : *De providentia Dei ejusgue prcedestmatione, et
quod Deus non sit auctor peccati, — in quo qucz in Calviniformulis loquendi circa hcec improbet,
candide et copiose satis exponit, 3 Mart. 1553.' (Appended by mistake to Peter Martyr's Loci
communes, Gen. 1626. See the extracts of Schweizer from a MS. copy in Zurich, Central-
dogmen9*Vol. I. pp. 266 sqq.). Bullinger disapproved of the supralapsarian assertion, lDeum
non modo ruinam (lapsurri) pravidisse sed etiam arbitrio suo dispensasse.1 Nevertheless, he
called Peter Martyr, who was a strict predestinarian, to Zurich, took sides with Zanchi in the
Strasburg controversy, and expressed the infralapsarian view in the Second Helvetic Confes-
sion, Art. X. See J. H. Hottinger, Histor. eccles. Vol. VIII. p. 723 ; Schweizer, pp. 237 and
255 sqq.
8 Also written Castallio (by Calvin) ; in French, Chateillon and Chatillon, probably from
his birth-place in Savoy
4:76 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
and a forerunner of Socinianism and Rationalism, was received by Cal-
vin into his house at Strasburg (154:0), and called by him to the head
of the college at Geneva (Sept., 1541), but was refused admission to
the clergy on account of his * profane view' of the Canticles, which he
regarded as a sensual love-song.1 These and other theological differ-
ences caused his resignation or dismissal from the school, though
with an honorable letter of recommendation from Calvin (Feb. 17,
1545), He removed with his family to Basle, and spent there the
remainder of his life — for eight years in great poverty, supporting
himself by literary and manual labor, then as professor of Greek in
the University (since 1553). His principal work is a Latin transla-
tion of the Bible (1551), which was much praised and censured for its
pedantic Ciceronian elegance. He attacked Calvin and the Church
of Geneva very bitterly in anonymous and pseudonymous books, to
which Calvin and Beza replied with equal bitterness. In his c Dia-
logue on Predestination,' he charges Calvin with making God the
author of sin, and dividing the will of God into two contradictory
wills. His own view is that all men are alike created in God's image
and for salvation, and are by nature the sons and heirs of God ; but
that final salvation depends upon faith and perseverance. God loves
even his enemies, else he could not command us to love them, and
would be worse than the wild beast, which loves its own offspring.
God's foreknowledge involves no necessity of human actions : things
happen, not because God foreknew them, but God foreknew them be-
cause they were to happen. God wills a thing because it is right, and
not vice versa. He reasons as if there were an established moral
order outside and independent of God. He compares God to a mu-
sician who unites two tunes because they harmonize. Christ came as
a physician to heal all the sick, and if some remain sick it is because
they refuse the medicine. The famous passage about Jacob and Esau
(Bom. ix.) does not refer to these individuals (for Jacob never served
Esau), but to the nations which proceeded from them ; and 4 to hate'
means only <to love less;' moreover, Esau was not foreordained to sell
his birthright, but he did this by his own guilt. Paul himself says
1 * Carmen lascivwn et obsccenum, quo Salomo impudicos suos amoves descrips&rit.' Castellia
doubted the verbal inspiration, and called the Greek of the New Testament impure.
§ 61. THE HELVETIC CONSENSUS FORMULA, 1675. £77
that God will have all men to be saved, and that che concluded all in
unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all,9 Castellio died a few
months before Calvin, without leaving a school behind him ; but his
ideas were afterwards more fully developed by the Socinians and
Arminians.1
Notwithstanding these difficulties, the doctrine of predestination
made headway in the Reformed Church. It was strongly advo-
cated in Zurich by Peter Martyr. His opponent, Theodor Biblian-
der (Buchmann), a distinguished Orientalist, ' the father of exegetical
theology in Switzerland,' and a forerunner of Arminianism, was re-
moved from his professorship of Hebrew on account of his advo-
cacy of free-will (1560), though his salary was continued to his death
(1564:).2 The dogma of predestination consolidated the Calvinistic
creed, as the dogma of consubstantiation consolidated the Lutheran
creed. Both these distinctive dogmas maintained their hold on the
two Churches until the theological revolution towards the close of the
eighteenth century began to undermine the whole fabric of Protest-
ant orthodoxy and to clear the way for new creations.
§ 61. THE HELVETIC CONSENSUS FORMULA. A.D. 1675.
Literature,
I. FOKMITLA CONSENSUS ECOLESIARTJM HELVETIOABTIM REFOBMATABUM, circa Doctrinam de Gratia uni-
versali et connexa, aliaque nonnulla capita (EinhelligeFormul der reform, eidg. Kirchen, tetre/end dieLetore
von der allgemeinen Gnad und was derselben anhanget, sodann auch etlicte andere Heligionspunkten^
Composed A.D. 1675 ; first printed at Zurich, 1114* as an appendix to the Second Helvetic Confession ; then
1718 1722 etc., in Latin and German. The official copy, in both languages, is in the archives of Zurich.
The Latin text has a place in Niemeyer's CUZMfe, pp. 729-739 ; the German text in B5ckel, pp. 34S-360.
The writings of AMYBAUT, CAPPEL, and LA PLACE; their friends, PAUL TESTABD, JEAN DAILL£ and
DAVID BLONDEL; their opponents, PIEKBE DTJ MOTOD*, FR. SPANHEIM, and ANX>B£ KIVET; and the de-
cisions of the Synods of ALBION, CHABENTON, and LOUDON (1637-1659). See below.
II J. JAO. HOTTINGEB (d. 1735) : Succincta et solida ac genuina Farmute Consensus . . . histona, Latin
and German, 1723. By the same: Helvetische Kirchengeschichte, Zurich, Theil IIL pp. 1086 sqq.; IV.
pp. 258, 268 sqq.
BAYLE: Diet. &rt. Amyraut.
Cn. M.PFAFF: Dissertatio histw. theologica de Formula Consensus Helv. Tubingen, 1723.
J. Rm>. SALOHLI : Strictures et observations in Pfaflti dissertationem de F. C. Bern, 1723.
~"" " " *"**"' "" — — ' '""""* »*"*****>.>
ausserhatt der lufh. Kircke, Jena, 1733, Vol. I pp. 454 sqq. ; IH.pp.7S6
sqq.
HAGENBACH : Kritische Gesch. der ersten Easier Confession. Basle, 1827, pp. 173 sqq. ^
ALEX. SOUWEIZE*: Die Protest. CentraUoginen in Hirer Enticieklung innerhafo der Reformrten Kircte
Zw&itB Halfte (Zurich, 1856), pp. 439-563. By the same : Die Enstehung der helvetischen C<msensu*-Formel,
1 On Castellio, see Schweizer, Gsntraldognt**, Vol. I. pp. 31 0-373, and his essay, 8. Castellio
ah Bestreiter der calvinischen Pradestinationslehre, in the Theol Jahrbtcher of Baur and
Zeller,1851.
a See Schweizer, pp. 276 sqq.
478 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
aua Z&ricte* Specialgeachichte ntlher bfletichtet, in Niedner's Zeit&chnft fur hittor. TJieologw 101- 1860,
pp. 122-148 (gives an extract from the MS. of J. H. Heidegger's Gr&ndlicte und wahrhaftige Historic).
Comp. also Schweizer's art. Amyraut, in Herzog's Real-Encykl 2d ed. Vol. I. pp. 356-361 ; and on the
K/fe and Writings ofAmyraut, in the TQbinger Theol Jahrbucher for 1862.
F. TBKOHSEL : Helvetische Consenstts-Formel, in HerzogaReal-Encyklop. 2d ed. VoL V. pp. 755-764 (partly
based on MS. sources).
GUST. FBANK: Geschichte der Protestant. TJieologie, Leipz. 1865, Vol. II. pp. 35 sqq.
ATTG. EHRABD : Kfrehen- und Dogm&ngeschichte, Vol. HI. (1866), pp. 538 sqq. and 552 sqq. Also his art.
on Amyraldism (against Schweizer), in the Reform. Kirch&nzeitung for 1853, No. 2T sqq.
The Helvetic Consensus Formula (Formula Consensus Helvetica)
is the last doctrinal Confession of the Reformed Church of Switzer-
land, and closes the period of Calvinistic creeds. It has been called
a c symbolical after-birth.' It was composed in 1675, one hundred
and eleven years after Calvin's death, by Professor JOHN HENRY HEI-
DEGGER, of Zurich (1633-1698),1 at the request and with the co-opera-
tion of the Eev. LUCAS GERNLEE, of Basle (d. 1675), and Professor
FRANCIS TURRETIN, of Geneva (1623-168Y).2 It never extended its
authority beyond Switzerland, but it is nevertheless a document of
considerable importance and interest in the history of Protestant the-
ology. It is a defense of the scholastic Calvinism of the Synod of
Dort against the theology of Saurnnr (Salmuriwri), especially against
the universalism of Amyraldus. Hence it may be called a Formula
anti-Salmuriensis, or anti-Amymldensis.
THE SYNOD OF DORT AND THE THEOLOGY OF SATTMUR.
The Twenty-third National Synod of the Reformed Church in
France, held at Alais, Oct. 1, 1620, adopted the Canons of Dort
(1619), as being in full harmony with the Word of God and the
French Confession of 1559, and bound all ministers and elders by a
solemn oath to defend them to the last breath. The Twenty-fourth
National Synod at Charenton, September, 1623, reaffirmed this adop-
tion.3
But in the theological academy at Saumur, founded by the cele-
1 Author ofConcilii Tridentini Anatome historico-theologica; Enchiridion Biblicum;
toria sacra patriarcharum ; and Histoire du Papisme.
3 Author of the Institutio theokgicos elenchthiccs (1679-85), which still keeps its place among
the best systems of Calvinistic theology. New edition, Edinburgh and New York, 1 847, in
four volumes. His son, John Alphonsus (1 671 -1 787), Professor of Church History in Geneva,
was inclined to Arminianism, and advocated toleration. See Schweizer, Centraldogmen, VoL
II. pp. 784 sqq.
3 Aymon. Toits les Synodes nationaux des fylises rffomntes de France. A la Haye, 171Q
Vol. II. pp. 183, 298 ; Schweizer, 1. c. pp. 229 sqq.
§ 61. THE HELVETIC CONSENSUS FORMULA, 1675. 479
brated Reformed statesman Du Plessis Itornay (1604), there arose
a more liberal school, headed by three contemporary professors —
JOSUE DE LA PLACE (PLACEUS, 1596-1655), Louis OAPPEL (CAPELLUS,
1585-1658), and MOTSE AMTRATJT (MOSES AMYKALDUS, 1596-1664) —
which, without sympathizing with Arminianism, departed from the
rigid orthodoxy then prevailing in the Lutheran and Reformed
Churches on three points — the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures,
the particular predestination, and the imputation of Adam's sin.
Saumur acquired under these leaders great celebrity, and attracted
many students from Switzerland. It became for the Reformed Church
of France what Helmstadt, under the lead of Calixtus, was for the
Lutheran Church in Germany ; and the Helvetic Consensus Formula
of Heidegger may be compared to the c Consensus r&petitus* of Calo-
vius (1664), which was intended to be a still more rigorous symbolical
protest against Syncretism, although it failed to receive any public
recognition.1
The further development of the Saumur theology was arrested by
the political oppression which culminated in the cruel revocation of
the Edict of Nantes by Louis XIV. (1685), and aimed at the utter
annihilation of the Reformed Church in France. But its ideas have
silently made progress, and were independently revived in more recent
times.
VERBAL INSPIRATION.
Louis Cappel, the most distinguished of an eminent Huguenot fam-
ily, and one of the first Biblical scholars of the seventeenth century,
made the history of the text of the Hebrew Scriptures his special
study, and arrived at conclusions which differed from the orthodox
theory of a literal inspiration. He discovered and proved that the
Hebrew system of vocalization did not date from Adam, nor from
Moses, nor from Ezra and the Great Synagogue, but from the Jewish
grammarians after the completion of the Babylonian Talmud.2 This
1 See p. 851, and Schweizer's comparison of the two documents, Vol. II. pp. 532 sqq.
a 'Arcanum punctationis revelatum^ added to his Commentarii et notes critica in VetttB
Testamentum, Amst. 1689. Cappel wrote this tract in 1622, and sent the MS. to the elder
Buxtorf. of Basle (d. 1 629), who returned it with the advice to keep back his view. It was
first published anonymously by Erpenius at Leyden, 1624. Twenty years afterwards Bux-
torf the younger (d. 1664) attacked it in his Traetatus de punctorum origine, antiquitate et
avtoritate, Basil 1648. Against this Cappel wrote his Vindicice Arcani punctat. revel., but
480 THE CREEDS OF CHBISTENDOM.
view is confirmed by the absence of vowels on Jewish coins, on the
PhoBnician and Punic monuments, on the inscription of the Moabite
stone (discovered 1868), and by the analogy of the other Semitic ^n-
guages. Cappel unsettled also the traditional view of the literal in-
tegrity and sacredness of the Masoretic text, and showed that the
different readings (Keri and Etib\ while they had no bearing on
faith and morals, and therefore could not undermine the authority of
the Scriptures, are not to be traced to willful corruption, but must be
consulted, together with the ancient translations, in ascertaining the
true text.1
These views, which are now generally accepted among Biblical schol-
ars, met with violent opposition. Even the Buxtorfs, father and son,
at Basle, who immortalized themselves by their rabbinical learning,
advocated the divine inspiration of the Hebrew vowels. The Prot-
estant orthodoxy of the seventeenth century, both Oalvinistic and Lu-
theran, was very sensitive on this point, because it substituted an in-
fallible Bible for an infallible papacy; while the Eoman orthodoxy
cared much more for the divine authority of the Church than for that
of the Scriptures.
UNIVERSAL AND PARTICULAR PREDESTINATION.
Moses Amyraut, originally a lawyer, but converted to the study of
theology by the reading of Calvin's c Institutes,3 an able divine and
voluminous writer, developed the doctrine of hypothetical or con-
ditional universalism, for which his teacher, John Cameron (1580-
1625), a Scotchman, and for two years Professor at Saumur, had
prepared the way. His object was not to set aside, but to moderate
and liberalize Calvinism by ingrafting this doctrine upon the par-
ticularism of election, and thereby to fortify it against the objections
of Eomanists, by whom the French Protestants were surrounded and
threatened. Being employed by the Eeformed Synod in important
they were not published till 1689, by his son, Jacques C., in an Appendix to his Commen-
tary. His views on the late origin of the Hebrew yowels were anticipated by rabbinical
scholars, Abn-Ezra (d. 1174) and Elias Levita (d. 1549).
1 Critica sacra, etc., Paris, 1650, folio; another edition, by Vogel, in three volumes, Halle,
1775-86. The work was finished October, 1634, but the printing was delayed by the op-
position of the Protestants until his son, Jean Cappel, who seceded to the Koman Church,
procured a royal privilege for its publication in Paris.
§ 61. THE HELVETIC CONSENSUS FORMULA, 1675. 481
diplomatic negotiations with the government, he came in frequent
contact with bishops, and with Cardinal Richelieu, who esteemed him
highly. His system is an approach, not so much to Arininianisnij
which he decidedly rejected, as to Lutheranism, which likewise teaches
a universal atonement and a limited election.1
Amyraut maintained the Oalvinistic premises of an eternal fore-
ordination and foreknowledge of God, whereby he caused all things
inevitably to pass — the good efficiently, the bad permissively.2 He
also admitted the double decree of election and reprobation. But in
addition to this he taught that God foreordained a universal salvation
through the universal sacrifice of Christ offered to all alike (egalement
pour tous\ on condition of faith, so that on the part of God's 'will
and desire (voluntas, velleitas> affectus) the grace is universal, but as
regards the condition it is particular, or only for those who do not
reject it and thereby make it ineffective. The universal redemption
scheme precedes the particular election scheme, and not vice versa.
He reasons from the benevolence of God towards his creatures ; Cal-
vinism reasons from the result, and makes actual facts interpret the
decrees. Amyraut distinguished between objective grace which is
offered to all, and subjective grace in the heart which is given only
to the elect. He also makes a distinction between natural ability
and moral ability, or the power to believe and the willingness to
believe ; man possesses the former, but not the latter, in conse-
quence of inherent depravity.3 He was disposed, like Zwingli, to
extend the grace of God beyond the limits of the visible Church, in-
asmuch as God by his general providence operates upon the heathen,
and may produce in them a sort of unconscious Christianity, a faith
without knowledge ; while within the Church he operates more fully
1 Amyraut's writings on this subject are: Trait€ de la Predestination (also in Latin), Sau-
mur,1634; Echantillon de la doctrine de Calvin sur h Predestination, 1 637 ; De. la, justi-
fication, 1638 ; De providentia Dei in malo, 1638 ; Defensio doctrines Calvini de absolute
reprobations decreto, 1641; Dissertationes theol. quatuor, 1645; JSxercitatio de gratia uni-
versali, 1646 ; Disputatio de libero hominis arbitrio, 1647 ; Sermons sur divers textes de la
Ste. &riture, 1653 ; Irenicum sive de ratione pads in religionis negotio inter Evangelicos,
1662. Amyraut wrote besides a system of Christian Ethics (in six volumes), and a number
of exegetical and practical works. See a list in Herzog, Vol. I. pp. 296 sq.
3 ' Ou de permettre tenement les mauvaises, gue Vtvtnement soit entierement unduUtabh:
3 The same distinction was a century later made by New England Calvinists under the lead
of Jonathan Edwards, who knew of the Saumur theology through the works of Stapfer,
£82 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
and clearly through the means of grace. Those who never heard of
Christ are condemned if they reject the general grace of providence;
but the same persons would also reject Christ if he were offered to
them. As regards the result, Amyraut agreed with the particularists.
His ideal universalism is unavailable, except for those in whom God
previously works the condition of faith, that is, for those who are
included in the particular decree of election.1
Amyraut's doctrine created a great commotion in the Reformed
Churches of France, Holland, and Switzerland. Jean Daill£ (1594-
1670),2 David Blondel (1591-1655),3 and others considered it innocent
and consistent with the decrees of the Synod of Dort, where German
Reformed and Anglican delegates professed similar views against the
supralapsarianism of Gomarus. But Peter du Moulin (Molinseus, since
1621 Professor of the rival theological school of Sedan), Frederick
Spanheim (1600-1649, Professor in Leyden), Andrew Rivet (1572-
1651, Professor in Leyden), and the theologians of Geneva opposed it
as a departure from the orthodox faith and a compromise between
Calvinism and Arminianism.4
The friends of Amyraut urged the love, benevolence, and impartial
justice of God, and the numerous passages in Scripture which teach that
God loves * the whole world,3 that he will have * all men to be saved/
1 * Notre salut €temel depend de cette condition, que nous appellons lafoy; cettefoy depend
de la grace de JDieu et de la puissance de son Esprit; cette grace, cette puissance de V Esprit
depend du conseil de Selection de Dieu^ et ce conseil riayant autrefondement que sa volonte" est
constant et irrevocable^ Ve've'nement sursuit necessairement. Ce conseil depend de la libre volontd
de Dieu.' Schweizer, pp. 296 sq.
* Joh. Dallas! : Apologia pro duabus synodis nationalibus, altera Alensone 3637, altera Ca-
rentone 1645 habitis adv. Fr. Spanhemii Exercitationes de gratia universali. Amst. 1 655
(1227 pages), and Vindicice Apologia pro duabus synodis. Amst. 165f. See extracts in
Schweizer, pp. 390 sqq. Daill£ is best known by his work Svr Vuwge des Peres (De Usu
Patrum).
3 Actes authentiques touchant la paix et charite fraternelle avet les Protestantes, etc.
Amst. 1655. Blondel is best known by his De la primaute' en fyJise (1641), and other his-
torical works. He was Secretary of the French Synod, which made him honorary professor,
with a salary sufficient to enable him to devote himself without pastoral care to his studies.
He had an enormous memory, and when blind in his old age he dictated two folios on diffi-
cult points in chronology.
* See especially PIERRE DU MOULIN: Examen de la doctrine des Messieurs Amyraut et
T6tard touchant la predestination et les poins. qui en dependent, Amsterd. 1 638 ; and Eclair-
dssement des controverses Salmuriennes, ou defense de la doctrine des tgllses rtforme'es sur
Vimmutabilite' des decrets de Dieu, etc. Leyden, 1648. SPANHEIM (the elder) : Disputatio de
gratia universaK,IjUgd. Bat. 1644; and Exercitationes de gratia universal*) Lugd. Bat. 1640
(1856 pages). ANDR£ RIVET : Opera omnia, Lugd. Bat. 1651-60, Vol. III. pp. 828-878.
$ 61. THE HELVETIC CONSENSUS FORMULA, 1675. 433
that Christ died ' not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the
whole world,' that 'he shut up all in unbelief that he might have
inercy upon all' On the other hand, it was objected that God could
not really will and intend what is never accomplished ; that he could
not purpose an end without providing adequate means ; that, in point
of fact, God did not actually offer salvation to all ; and that a univer-
salism based on an impossible condition is an unfruitful abstraction.1
The national Synods at Alengon, 1637 ; at Oharen ton, 1645 ; and at
Loudun, 1659 (the last synod permitted by the French Government),
decided wisely and moderately, saving the orthodoxy of Amyraut,
and guarding only against misconceptions. He gave the assurance
that he did not change the doctrine, but only the method of instruc-
tion. And his opponents were forced at last to admit that the idea
of a universal grace, by which no one was actually saved unless in-
cluded in the particular, effective decree of election, was quite harm-
less. In this way universalism and particularism were equally sanc-
tioned, and a schism in the French Church was avoided.2 The literary
controversy continued for several years longer, and developed a large
amount of learning and ability, until it was brought to an abrupt close
by the political oppressions of the Reformed Church in France.3
1 The orthodox Lutherans, as far as they took notice of this controversy, saw in Amyrald-
ism a concealment of Calvinism, a mockery on the part of God, a hridge to Syncretism, and
characterized the gratia Amyraldina as a gratia Calvina, non divina. So Reheboldus, De
natura et gratia Mosi Amyraldo opposita, Gissse, 1651 (quoted by G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 43).
Among American divines, Dr. Hodge notices this controversy (Syst. Theology, Vol. IL
p. 322), and says that hypothetical redemption is liable to the objections against both Au-
gustinianism and Arminianism. * It does not remove the peculiar difficulties of Augustin-
ianism, as it asserts the sovereignty of God in election. Besides, it leaves the case of the
heathen out of view. They, having no knowledge of Christ, could not avail themselves of
this decretum hypotheticum, and must therefore be considered as passed over by a decretum
absolution.' But Amyraut does notice the case of the heathen ; see above.
3 Schweizer, pp. 307 sqq. ; Ebrard, p. 555.
3 Schweizer gives a very fall account of the writings on both sides, pp. 320-439. In mod-
ern times the great Schleiermacher has revived Amyraldism on German soil, but in a much
bolder form, and at the expense of the Scripture doctrine of eternal punishment. He widens
Calvinism (which he very acutely defends against Lutheranism and Arminianism) into a real
and effective universalism of salvation, and makes the particularism of election and reprobation
merely a temporary means to this end. Schweizer, one of his ablest pupils, adopts this solu-
tion of the problem in his Christliche Glaubenslehre,'Leipzig* 1872, Vol. II. Part II. pp. 78 sqq.
and 444 sqq. But this solution is subject to all the objections of what in America is popu-
larly called the system of Universalism : it turns conversion into a process of nature or ne^
cessity; it dulls the edge of warning; freedom implies the continued power of resistance;
repentance becomes more and more difficult, and at last impossible, especially in hell and ir
the case of the devil and diabolized men.
484: THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
MEDIATE AND IMMEDIATE IMPUTATION.1
All Augustinians and Calvinists agree in the doctrine of total de-
pravity and original sin in consequence of Adam's fall; but differ-
ences arose among them concerning the imputation of Adam's sin
and guilt to his posterity. The majority advocated the realistic the-
ory of an actual, though impersonal and unconscious^ participation of
the whole human race in the fall of Adam as their natural organic
head, who by his individual transgression vitiated the generic human
nature, and transmitted it in this corrupt state by physical generation
to his descendants. This, the old Augustinian view, was renewed by
the Eeformers. Others, since the seventeenth century, adopted the
federal theory of a vicarious legal representation of mankind by Adam,
in virtue of an assumed covenant of works made with him by the
Sovereign Creator, to the effect that Adam should stand a moral \ ro
bation in behalf of all his descendants (acting like a guardian for
children yet unborn, or like a representative for future constituents),
and that his act of obedience or disobedience, with all its consequences,
should be judicially imputed to them, or accounted theirs in law.2
Still others combined the two theories so as to make imputation rest
both on the moral ground of participation and on the legal ground
of representation.
In connection with this doctrine of hereditary sin there arose among
the Oalvinists of the seventeenth century a controversy about imme-
diate or antecedent, and mediate or consequent imputation.3 The
1 Syntagma thesium theologicarwn in academia Salmuriensi disputatarum, Ed, II. Sal-
mur. 1664. PLACETS : De statu hominis lapsi ante gratiam, 1640; his defense, De imputa-
tione primipeficatiAdami,1655, in his Opera omnia, 1699 and 1702, two vols. Against him,
A. RIVET : JDecretum Synodi nationalis Ecdesiarum Reformatarum Gallice, A.D. 1645 de im~
putatione primi peccati omnibus Adami posteris, cum Mcclesiarum et doctorum protestantium
consent ex scriptis eorum coftecto, in the Opera Theol of Rivet, Rotterd. 1 660, Tom. III.
pp. 798-827, translated in part in the Princeton Review for 1839, pp. 553-579. Comp. also
Schweizer's art. Placeus, in Herzog, Vol. XI. pp. 755-57, and several American' treatises on
the imputation controversy by Hodge, Baird, Landis, G. P. Fisher, quoted in my annotations
to Lange's Com, on Rom. v. 12 (pp. 191 sqq.), where the exegetical aspects are fully discussed
in connection with the classical passage 10' y itavr^ fjfjiapTov.
a F&dus operum, or/cecfos natural, as distinct fromfcedus gratia. The only Scripture pas-
sage which the Federalists alleged in favor of this primal covenant is Hos. vi. 7 : ' Eor they, like
Adam [ti'jxajjhave broken the covenant;' but others translate with the Sept: 'They [are]
like men [who] break a covenant' (o»c avS-pwTroeiro/oaj&uvwi/ StaSrfiKrjv).
3 Tarretin (Instit, Pars I. pp. 556, Loc. ix. de peccato, Qu. X.} charges De la Place with
§ 61. THE HELVETIC CONSENSUS FOBMULA, 167/5. 485
theory of immediate imputation makes all descendants of Adam re-
sponsible for his disobedience as participants in actu, and condemns
them independently of, and prior to, native depravity and personal
transgression, so that hereditary guilt precedes hereditary sin. The
theory of mediate imputation mates inherent depravity derived from
Adam, and this alone, the ground of imputation and condemnation
(vitiositas prc&cedit imputationem). The school of Montauban, Eivet
of Leyden, the elder Turretin of Geneva, Heidegger of Zurich, Garis-
sol, Maresius, and the supralapsarians and federalists advocated the
former, some exclusively, some in connection with mediate imputa-
tion. La Place (Placeus) of Saumur denied immediate imputation of
a foreign sin as arbitrary and unjust, and allowed only a mediate im-
putation,, but claimed to be nevertheless in full harmony with Calvin's
teaching on this subject.
The Eeformed national Synod at Charenton, near Paris, in 1645, re-
jected the theory of La Place (yet without calling him to an account or
naming him), at least so far as it restricts the nature of original sin to
the mere hereditary corruption of Adam's posterity. In vindication
of the decree of the Synod, Eivet prepared a collection of passages on
imputation (many of them very general and inconclusive) from Ee-
formed and Lutheran confessions and the writings of Calvin, Beza,
Bullinger, Melanchthon, Chemnitz, and others.
THE CONSENSUS FORMULA.
Several years after the leaders of the Saumur theology had passed
from the stage of history it was thought desirable by some of the
prominent divines of Switzerland to protect their Churches against
possible danger from the new doctrines of Saumur, which were im-
ported through writings and students, and met with considerable sym-
pathy, especially in Geneva. It was feared — and not without reason —
that, however innocent in themselves, they might lead, by legitimate
logical development, to an ultimate abandonment of the system of
Calvinism.
Hence the new Formula of orthodoxy which forms the subject of
this section, was agreed upon by the ecclesiastical and civil authorities
inventing this distinction to evade the force of the synodical decision of Charenton,
Augustine and the Reformers did not use the terms, and hence are quoted on hoth sides.
486 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
of Zurich, Basle, and Geneva, and adopted in other Eeformed cantons
as a binding rule of public teaching for ministers and professors. Its
authority was confined to Switzerland, and even there it could not
maintain itself longer than about half a century, French ministers,
who fled to Lausanne after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes,
refused to sign it ; the great Elector Frederick William of Branden-
burg (1686), and afterwards the Kings of Prussia and England, and
the Corpus Evangelicorum at Eatisbon (1722), urged the Eeformed
cantons, in the interest of peace and union, to abandon the Formula.
It gradually lost its hold upon the Swiss churches, and was allowed to
die and be buried without mourners. Nevertheless the theology which
it represents continues to be advocated by a respectable school of strict
Calvinists in Europe, and especially in America.
The Helvetic Consensus Formula was not so much intended to
be a new confession of faith, as an explanatory appendix to the
former Confessions (resembling in this respect the Saxon Yisitation
Articles, which were an appendix to the Lutheran Formula of Con-
cord, to guard the churches of Saxony against the dangers of crypto-
Calvinism). The document does not breathe the fresh and bracing
air of faith and religious experience which characterize the Confes-
sions of the Eeformation period. It is the product of scholasticism,
which formularized the faith of Calvin into a stiff doctrinal system,
and anxiously surrounded it with high walls to keep out the light of
freedom and progress. Nevertheless it is more liberal than is generally
represented and than might be expected from the bigotry and polem-
ical violence of the seventeenth century. Heidegger * was personally
mild and modest ; he spoke the truth in love, and resisted the pressure
of extremists in Switzerland and Holland, who suspected even him of
unsoundness, and desired a formal condemnation of the schools not
only of Saumur but also of Coeceius and Cartesius. Instead of this,
he speaks in the preface of the Formula, respectfully and kindly, of
the Saumur theologians, and calls them venerable brethren in Christ,
who built on the same foundation *>f faith, and whose peculiar doc-
fcrines are not condemned as heresies, but simply disapproved.3
1 'Salvwn entm utrinque per Dei gratiam stat fundamentwn fidei. . . . Salva vnitas cor'
ports mystici et Sniritus. . . . Salvum denique apud nos semper tenerrimce caritatis vincvlum,1
§ 61. THE HELVETIC CONSENSUS FORMULA, 1675. 487
The Formula consists of a preface and twenty-six canons or articles,
which clearly state the points of difference between strict Calvinism
and Salmurianisna. They teach the following points:
1. The literal inspiration of the Scriptures and the integrity of the
traditional Hebrew text of the Old Testament, including the vowels aa
well as consonants ; so that we need not resort to manuscripts, transla-
tions, and conjectures.1 Art. 1-3. Against Cappel.
This attempt to canonize the Hebrew vowels gave great offense to
Claude, Daill£, and other French Calvinists ; and Heidegger explained
to Turretin that the object of the Formula was only to guard the
authority and integrity of the original text, and not to decide gram-
matical and critical questions. But in its natural effect such a me-
chanical theory of inspiration, which, to be of any practical use, re-
quires a perpetual literary miracle in the preservation of the text, would
supersede all textual criticism, and make the Targums, the Septuagint,
the Vulgate, and other ancient versions, worse than useless.
2. God decreed from eternity, first, to create man innocent ; second,
to permit (permittere) the fall ; third, to elect some to salvation, and
thus to reveal in them his mercy, but to leave the rest in the corrupt
mass (alias vero in corrupta massa relinquere), and to devote them
to eternal perdition. (This is clearly the Augustinian infralapsarian-
ism.) In the gracious decree of election Christ himself is included, as
etc. The original draft of the Formula was even milder and much shorter. Schweizer has,
in a purely historical interest, vindicated the memory of Heidegger and the comparatively
moderate character of the Consensus Formula. See his extracts from the MS. of Heidegger'*
Report, in Niedner's Zeitsckrift, above quoted, and his art. Heidegger, in Herzog's Real,
EncykL
1 ' In specie autem Hebraicus Veteris Testamenti Codex, quern ex traditione JEcclesioi Ju*
daicce, cui olim Oracula Dei commissa sunt, accepimus hodieque retinemus, turn quoad CONSO-
NAS, turn quoad VOCALIA, sivepuncta ipsa, sive punctorum saltern potestatem, et turn QUOAD RES,
turn QUOAD VERBA SsoirvsvcFTOG, ut jidei et vita nostroe, una cum Codice Novi Testamenti sit
CANON unicus et iUibatus, ad cuius normam, ceu Lydium lapidem, universes, qua extant, Ver-
siones, size orientales, sive occidentales exigenda, et sicuhi deflectunt, revocandce sunt.1 The
same theory of plenary inspiration of words and thoughts, which dates from Rabbinical ortho-
doxy, but was not held by the Reformers, prevailed in the Lutheran Church since John Ger-
hard, and is even now extensively held, especially in England and America, by those whose
faith in the Word of God is not affected by modern criticism. It was most ably defended
by the venerable Dr. Louis Gaussen (1790-1863), Professor in the Free Church Theological
School of Geneva, in his works on Theopneusty (1840 ; second edition, 1842), and on the
Canon (1862, two vols.). Dissent from him led to the resignation of his colleague, Scherer.
Gaussen admitted, however, the individualities of the sacred writers, and compares them to
the keys of an immense organ, on which the Holy Spirit played.
VOL. I.— I r
488 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
the Mediator and onr first-born Brother. The doctrine of an antece-
dent hypothetical will or intention of God1 to save all men on con-
dition of faith is rejected as unscriptural and as involving God in im-
perfection and contradiction. Art. 4-6. Against Amyraut
3. The covenant of works made by God with Adam before the fall,
promising to him eternal life (symbolized by the tree of life in Para-
dise), on condition of perfect obedience. Art. 7-9. Against Amyraut
4. Immediate imputation of Adam's sin to all his posterity who fell
in him, their representative head (in ipso ut capite et stirpe), and for-
feited the promised blessing of the covenant of works. Man is thus
doubly condemned, for his participation in the sin of Adam and for
his hereditary depravity ; to deny the former makes the latter doubt-
ful.2 Art. 10-12. Against La Place, not because he asserted mediate
or consequent imputation (which the Formula likewise teaches), but
because he excluded the other.
5. Limited atonement. Christ died only for the elect, and not indis-
criminately for all men.3 The infinite value and inherent sufficiency
of Christ's satisfaction is not denied, but the divine intention and the
practical efficiency are limited, and adjusted to the particularism of
the decree of election. Art. 13-16. Against Amyraut.
6. The actual vocation to salvation never was absolutely general
(numqvam absolute unwersalis\ but was confined to Israel in the old
dispensation and to Christians in the new (Matt xi. 25 ; Eph. i. 9).
God's revelation in nature and providence (Eom. i. 19, 20) is insuffi-
cient for purposes of salvation, though it leaves the heathen without
excuse for rejecting even this remnant of the knowledge of God. The
1 Called voluntas conditionata, velleitas, nnsericordia prima, desiderium inefficax.
* Art. X. * Censemus igitur peccatum Adami omnibus ejus posteris judicio Del arcano et
Jnsto imputari* (Rom. T. 12, 19; 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22). Art. XL 'Duplict igitur nomine post
peccatum homo natura, indeque ab ortu suo, antequam ullum actuate peccatum in se admittat,
vrce ac malediction* divince obnoxius est; primum quidem ob yrapairrtofia et inobedientiam,
quam in Ada-ad lumbis commisit ; deinde ab consequentem in ipso concepts hereditariam cor-
ruptionem insitam, qua tota ejus natura depravata et spiritualiter mortua est, adeo guidem9 ut
recte peccatum originale statuatur duplex . . . imputatum videlicet , et Jiereditarium inhcerens.'
3 Art. XIII. *Pro softs electis ex decretorio Patris consilio propriaque intentions diram
mortem oppetiit {Christu&k solos illos in sinum patentee gratias restituit, solos Deo Patri offenso
reconciliavit et a maledictione legis liberavit.* Art. XVI. 'Haud probare possumus oppo»
sitam doctrinam illorum qui statuunt, Christum propria intentions et consilio turn suo turn
Patris ipsum mittentis, mortuum esse pro omnibus et singulis, addita conditione impossibili, si
videlicet credant. ' The ablest modern advocate of this limited atonement theory is Dr. Hodge,
Syst, Tkeol VoL II. pp. 544 sqq.
§ 61. THE HELVETIC CONSENSUS FORMULA, 1675. 489
external call of God through his Word is always serious, and so far ef-
fective that it works salvation in the elect, and makes the unbelief of
the reprobate inexcusable.1 Art. 17-20. Against Aniyraut, who ex-
tended the vocation beyond the limits of the visible Church and the
ordinary means of grace.
7. The natural as well as moral inability of man to believe the gos-
pel of himself.2 This twofold inability has its ground in the depravity
of our nature, from which only the omnipotent power of the Holy
Spirit can deliver us (1 Cor. ii. 14 ; 2 Cor. iv. 6). Art. 21, 22. Against
Amyraut.
8. A twofold covenant of God with man — the covenant of works
made with Adam and through him with all men, but set aside by the
fall, and the covenant of grace made only with the elect in Christ,
which is forever valid, and exists under two economies, the Jewish
and the Christian. The saints of the Old Testament were saved by
the same faith in the Lamb of God as we are (Apoc. xiii. 8 ; Heb. xiii.
8 ; John xiv. 1) ; for out of Christ there is no salvation. The doctrine
of the Holy Trinity is revealed in the Old Testament in words, figures,
and types, sufficiently for salvation, though not as clearly as in the
New. For no one can believe in Christ without the Holy Spirit, the
third person in the Trinity. Amyraut's doctrine of three essentially
different covenants— natural, legal, and evangelical, with different de-
grees of knowledge and piety — is disapproved. Art 23-25.
The concluding article (the 26th) prohibits the teaching of new
or doubtful and unauthorized doctrines which are contrary to the
Word of God, the Second Helvetic Confession, the Canons of the
Synod of Dort, and other Eeformed symbols.
1 Art. XIX. * Vocatio extema qux& per prceconiwn Evangelicum fit , etiam vocantis Dei re-
spectv, seria et sincera est . . . Neque voluntas ilia respectu eorvm, qui vocation* non parent,
inefficax est, qw,a semper Deus id, quod vokns intendit, assequiturj etc.
3 Art. XXI. 'MORALIS ea impotentia did possit, qwtenus scilicet circa subjectum et objec-
tum morale versatwr: NATCRALIS tamen esse simul et did debet, quatenvs homo tyvcti, nature^
adeoqm nascendi lege, inde ab ortu estjllius irce' (Eph. ii. 2). Dr. Hodge likewise defends
this doctrine against the New School Calvinists, who, with Amyraut, claim for man the nat-
ural ability, but admit his moral inability.
490 THE CEEEDS Otf CHRISTENDOM
IL THE REFORMED CONFESSIONS OF FRANCE AND THE
NETHERLANDS.
§ 62. THE GALUCAN CONFESSION. A.D. 1559.
Literature.
I. EDITIONS OF THE GALLIOAN CONFESSION.
The original French text in THEOD. DE BBZA: Hfetoire eccttsicMtique des eglises reformies au royawm*
de France, Antw. I5SO, Tom. II. pp. 173-190 ; in NIEMBYKR'S Collectio Cow/, in eccles. reformat^ public, pp.
311-326 ; and in the Zeitschrift fur die histor. Theologie for 18T5, pp. 506-544, with an introduction by Dr.
HEPPE. The shorter recension in the new edition of Calvin's Opera, Vol. IX. pp. 739 sqq. The text, as
revised by the Synod of Rochelle (1571), was often printed in French Bibles, and separately. Comp. the
Toulouse edition of 1S64, entitled Confession de Foi et Discipline ecclesiastique des eglises reformees de
Prance (Societe des limes religieuxt pp. 9-36).
The Latin translation : Gallicarum ecclesiarum Confessio Chrfetianissimo Carole IX. regi anno MDLXL
exhibits. Nunc vero in Latinum conversa, ut omnino constet eas ab omnibus hwre&ibus sine sectis ease
prorsus aliena. Anno Domini 1566— and often reprinted ; also in Corpus et Syntagma, Conf. 1654, pp. 77-
88, and in NIKMEYER'S Collectio, pp. 327-330.
A German translation appeared first at Heidelberg, 1562 (see Niemeyer, Prof at. p. 1.) ; also in BOCKEL'S
Bektnntniits-Schriften der evang. reform. Kirclie, pp. 461-474.
An English translation in JOHN QUICK'S Synodicon in Gattia Reformata, Lond.1692, Vol. L pp. vL-xvL
IL HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION ASD THE REFORMED CHURCH IN FRANCE.
See partly the Literature on Calvin, quoted p. 421.
THEOD. BEZA : Histoire eccUs. des eglises ref armies au royaume de Francs (1521-63), Antw. 1580, 3 vols.
JEAN CRESPIN (d. 1572) : Livre des martyrs (Ada Jfartyrum), depute Jean HUB jusqu'en 1554. Geneva,
1560 ; enlarged edition, Geneve, 1617, and Amsterd. 1684.
SERBANUS (JEAN DE SEEBES, historiographer of France, 1540-98) : Commentarius de statu religionis et
reipubliccB in regno Gallic*, 1571-73 (five parts).
THEOB. AGEIPPA D'AUBIGN^ (ALBIN.SUS, a Hnguenot in the service of Henry IV. ; d. at Geneva, 1630):
JHstoire univer&elle de mon temps, 1616-20, 3 vols.
Du PLESSIS MOSNAT: Memoires et correapondance. Paris, 1824-25.
JOHN QUICK (a learned Non-conformist, d. 1706) : Synodicon in GfaUia Reform ata; or, the Acts, Derisions,
Decree^ and Canons of the National Councils of the Reformed Churches in France. London, 1692, 2 vols.
fol. (with a history of the Church till 1685). Much more accurate than Aymon.
ATUON : Tons lea synodes notionaux des eglises reformers de France. La Haye, 1710, 2 vols. 4to.
E. A. LAVAL: Compendious History of the Reformation in France .. .to the Repealing of the Edict of
Nantes. London, 1737-41, 7 vols.
SMEDLEY : History of the Reformed Religion in France. London, 1832, 3 vols.
&. DB FBLIOB: HiMre des Protestants en France. Toulouse, 1851 ; EngL translation, by Lobdel, 1851.
By the same : Hittoire des synodes nationaux des eglises reformees de France. Paris.
W. G. SOLDAN: Oeschichte des Protestantismus in Frankreich bis zum Tode EarVs IX. Leipzig, 1855,
8 vols.
G. TON POLK*Z: Oeschichte des franzSsischen CaMnismus Us zur Nationalversam'mlung i. J. 1789, zum
Then aus hand^chriftL Qiiellen. Gotha, 1857-64, 4 vols.
B. STAHELIN : Der Uetertritt Hem/rich's IV. Basle, 1886.
ATH. COQTTERKL : Hittoire des eglises du desert Paris, 1857, 2 vols,
W. HAAS : La France protettante. Paris, 1858 (biographies).
WEISS: Histmre des refugies protestants de France depuis la revocation, de Vtdit de Naitfes jusqu'd nos
jours. Paris, 1853; English translation, London, 1854, 2 vols.
Much valuable information on the early history of Calvinism and French Protestantism generally is
contained in HEKMTNJABD'S Correspondence des reformateurs dans Its pays de Ivngue francais, Geneve
and Paris, 1866 sqq. (so fsr 4 vols.), and in the Bulletin de la Soctifc de Thistoire du Protestantimne francais.
Documents historiques inedits et originaux XP7«, JTFJJ*, et XVIII* siecles. Paris (3, rue Lafitte), 1854-
SB; so far 22 vols.
EH. GENERAL HISTORIES OF FRANCE TOUCHING UPON THE REFORMATION PERIOD.
THFANTO (JAOQTOB ATOUSTE I>E THOU— born, 1553 ; died, 1617) : Historiarum sui temporis libri 138, from
1546-1607 (several editions in fiveT seven, and sixteen volumes). The author was a moderate Catholic,
witnessed the massacre of St. Bartholomew, and helped to prepare the Edict of Nantes. His history was
put in the Ind« Expmg. 1609.
§ 62. THE GALLICAN CONFESSION, 1559.
AAOXETELLE : Histoire de France pendant lea guerres de Za religion. Paris, 1822, 4 vols.
SIBMONDI: Histoire des Francois, Par. 1821-44, 31 vols. (from vol. 16th).
JULES MIOHELET (born, 1798) : Histoire de France, 1833-62, 14 vols. (vols. 8 and 9).
SIB JAMES STEPHEN : Lectures on the History of France, 1857, third edition, 2 vols.
LBOP. RANKE : Franzosische Geschtehte namentlieh vm 16. und 17. Jahrk. 1852-68, 6 vols. (EngHsh tran*
Jation in part, London, 1852, 2 vols.)
HENBI MAETIN: Histoire de France depute les temps lesplus recuUs jusgu'en 1789, fourth edition, Paris
1865-60, 16 Tom. (Vols. VII. to X.).
FRENCH PROTESTANTISM.
In France the Reformation seemed to be better prepared than even
in Germany, if we look only at the surface of the situation. The French
Church had always maintained a certain independence of Borne, under
the name of Gallican rights or liberties. Paris was, it is true, the
chief seat of orthodox scholasticism, and the Sorbonne took an early
opportunity to condemn Luther and his writings (1521) ; but it nursed
also the spirit of mysticism and disciplinary reform, which led to the
Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basle. In the South a remnant of
the Waldenses had survived the bloody persecutions. The humanistic
studies flourished greatly at Paris, Orleans, Bourges, and found favoi
at the court of Francis I. (1494-154:7), who invited classical scholars
from Italy, thought of calling Erasmus and even Melanchthon to his
capital, and aided, for political reasons, the Protestants in Germany,
while yet he inflicted imprisonment and death upon them in France.
For half a century, and amid bloody civil wars, three conflicting
tendencies, represented by Calvin, Rabelais, and Loyola — who hap-
pened to be in Paris at about the same period — struggled for the
mastery: Calvinism, with its high intelligence and uncompromising
virtue ; the Renaissance, with its elegant culture and frivolous skep-
ticism ; and Jesuitism, with its reactionary and unscrupulous fanati-
cism. Francis I. wavered between the Renaissance, which suited his
natural taste, and Romanism, which was the religion of the masses of
Frenchmen ; his gifted sister, Queen Margaret, of Navarre (grandmother
of Henry IV.), protected the Reformation and • the Renaissance, and
harbored at one time Calvin, and at another the Libertines. Romanism
triumphed first over Protestantism, and afterwards over semi-evangel-
ical Jansenism, and France reaped infidelity and the Revolution.
Calvinism, always in the minority, and too stern and exacting for
the national character, after a period of heroic martyrdom, gained for
a time a limited legal existence under Henry IV. in the Edict of
Mantes (1598), but was expelled under Louis XIV. to fertilize other
492 THE CBEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
countries, and reduced to a proscribed sect of the desert at home,
where nevertheless, like the burning bush, it could not be consumed,
and was providentially preserved for better days.1
The father of French Protestantism in its unorganized form is
Jacques Leffevre d'Etaples (Faber Stapnlensis, 1455-1537), Professor
of the Sorbonne and tutor of the royal princes. lie translated the
Bible from the Vulgate (completed 1530); he caught, even before
Luther and Zwingli,2 the doctrine of justification by faith without
human works or merit, and the supremacy of the Bible as a rule of
faith, and predicted a reformation, saying to his pupil, Farel, * God
will renovate the world, and you will be a witness of it;3 but he had
to flee to Strasburg, and afterwards to the court of Queen Margaret.
In the same spirit labored his friends and pupils — Bri§onnet, Bishop
of Meaux, who fostered evangelical doctrines and practices in his
diocese, but afterwards timidly joined in the condemnation of Lu-
ther; Melchior Wolmar, a native of Germany, Professor of Greek
in Bourges and teacher of Calvin; Louis de Berquin (1489-1599),
a royal counselor, who was burned at the stake; Clement Marot
(1495-1544), the favorite poet of his age and translator of the Psalms
in verse; Peter Robert Olivetan (d. 1538), a relative of Calvin and
translator of the Bible into French (printed at Neuchatel, 1535);
William Farel (1489-1565), Peter Viret, Anton Froment, Calvin, and
Beza — who were driven to French Switzerland. The radical extrav-
agances of Anabaptists and anti-Trinitarians also spread in France,
and were confounded by the government with the sound evangelical
doctrines, and made a pretext for persecution.
But it was only after Calvin, himself the greatest Protestant of
France, had taken up his permanent abode in Geneva, that the Bef-
1 * On an old seal, the device of which has heen preserved, the Trench [Reformed] Church
may be seen represented under the image of the burning bush of Motes, with this motto:
* t Ftagror^ sed non comburor. " These words sum up the tragical history of our Church. This
Church has been essentially militant ; she has known better, perhaps, than any other what it
is to fight for life — . Most voting Frenchmen are brought up in a holy horror of Protestant-
ism y and traces of this early impression are even found clinging to the minds of men of inde-
pendent thought — nay, of those whose boast it is that they are free-thinkers.' — A. Decoppet,
in his report on the Reformed Church in France, at the General Conference of the Evangel-
ical Alliance in New York, 1873. See Proceedings, p. 72. The synodical seal, with the
above motro and the date 1559, is reproduced on the title-page of the first volume of Ber-
sier's Histoire du Synode General de VtgliM reform, de France 1872 (Paris, 1872).
* SU& Commentary on tha Pauline Epistles appeared in 1512.
§ 62. THE GALLICAN CONFESSION, 1559. 493
ormation movement was organized into a separate Church, and ac-
quired a national importance. He therefore, and his friend and suc-
cessor Beza, may be regarded as the fathers of the Eeformed Church
of France. Geneva became an asylum for their persecuted country-
men, and the nursery of evangelists. Henceforward French Protest-
antism assumed a Calvinistic type in doctrine and discipline, but, ow-
ing to the hostile attitude of the government, it was kept separate and
distinct from the state. Although cruelly persecuted, and numbering
its martyrs by thousands, it spread rapidly among the middle and higher
classes, and in 1558 it embraced four hundred thousand followers.
The first national Synod was held in Paris, May 25-28, 1559, under
the moderatorslrip of Frangois de Morel, then pastor of Paris, a friend
and pupil of Calvin.1 It gave the Eeformed Church a compact or-
ganization by the adoption of the Gallican Confession of Faith, in
connection with a Presbyterian form of government and discipline,
which remained the firm basis of the Church as long as she was al-
lowed to exist and to hold national Synods, twenty-nine in all, the
last being that at Loudun, 1659.
ANTOINE BE CHANDIEU.
The Gallican Confession is the work of John Calvin, who prepared the
first draft, and of his pupil, Antoine de la Roche Chandieu, who, with
the Synod of Paris in 1559, brought it into its present enlarged shape/
Chandieu, or, as he is also called, Sadeel,3 was born 1534, of a wealthy
noble family, in the castle Chabot, in Burgundy, studied law in the Uni-
versity of Toulouse, was converted to Protestantism in Paris, renounced
a splendid career, studied theology at Geneva, was ordained 1554, and
1 An account of this Synod in Polenz, Vol. I. pp. 435 sqq* Owing to the troubles of the
times there were only eleven congregations represented — Dieppe, Paris, Angers, Orleans,
Tours, etc.
2 Quick, in the Synod. Gall. Ref. (London, 1692, Vol. I. p. xv.), says : 'Calvin first drew up
the Confession itself.* But Beza, in his History, connects Chandieu prominently with the
origin of the Confession, without expressly naming him as the author. It is hased, in part at
least, on a shorter Confession to the King (Au Roy\ which Calvin probahly prepared, 1557,
for the congregation of Paris, in vindication against false charges. See Bonnet, Lettres de
Calvin, Tom. II. p. 181, and Opera, Vol. IX. p. 715 (comp. Proleg. p. lix.). Calvin also
wrote another French Confession of Faith, in the name of the French Churches, during the
war, to he presented to the Emperor Maximilian and the German Diet at Frankfort,, 1562.
Reprinted in Opera, Vol. IX. pp. 753-772.
* The Hebrew name for Chandieu, i e. Champ de Dieu, Field of God.
494 THE CEEEDS OF CHBISTENDOM.
elected pastor of the small Reformed congregation in Paris. He wan
imprisoned 1557, escaped under the name Sadeel, was again imprison-
ed, but delivered by the hand of Anton de Bourbon (the father of
Henry IV.), engaged in mission work near Poitiers, and returned to
his congregation in Paris, 1559. He presided over the third National
Reformed Synod at Orleans, 1562, attended as delegate the seventh
National Synod at La Kochelle, 1571, barely escaped the massacre of
St. Bartholomew (Aug. 24), fled with his family to Geneva, and taught
theology at Lausanne. He received a commission in 1578 to attend a
Protestant Union meeting at Frankfort, suggested by the Elector John
Oasimir, but never carried out He was called back to France as chap-
lain of King Henry of Navarre (afterwards Henry IV.), returned to
Geneva, 1589, and labored there as pastor and Professor of Hebrew
till his death, Feb. 23, 1591. Beza esteemed him very highly. De
Thou recommends him for * noble birth, fine appearance, elegant man-
ners, learning, eloquence, and rare modesty.'1 Sadeel wrote twenty-
three books and tracts, mostly in Latin, some in French, relating to
Christian doctrines (especially the Word of God ; the priesthood and
sacrifice of Christ ; the human nature of Christ ; the spiritual mandu-
eation of his body), Church discipline, and the history of martyra2
THE &ALTJCA3ff CONFESSION.
On a visit to the mission church of Poitiers, after the holy comnra*
nion, Chandieu was requested by the brethren to suggest to the church
fa. Paris the importance of preparing a common confession of faith and
order of discipline.3 Calvin was consulted, a&d sent three delegates with
a draft of a confession to Paris. This was enlarged and adopted by the
Synod at Paris, 1559 ; presented, with a Preface, to King Francis II. at
Amboise, 1560, and afterwards by Beza to Charles IX. at the religious
1 Histar* lab. TXTX. (on occasion of his election as president of the National Synod of
Orleans, 1562) : 'JScclesice Parwensis pastor, adolescens, in quo prater gentis nobilitatem,
ori$ venustafadeS) eruditio, eloquentia cum singulari modestia cerfabant.'
* ANT. SADEELIS Opera theologia, edited after his death by his son John, and dedicated to
Henry of Navarre, Genev. 1592 ; fifth edition, 1620. He also wrote three sonnets on Calvin's
death, and Octonaires sur la vanitt du monde. See France proteetante, s. v. Chandieu, Vol.
III. pp. S20-3S2 ; Bulletin de la sodttt de FJustoire du protestantism fran$aist 1853, p. 279 ;
Gr. Ton Polenz, Gesch. desfranz. Cofo., Vol. I. p. 435 ; Borrel (pastor in Nismes), art. Chanr
dieu in Herzog, Real-Encykl. VoL XIX. p. 318. On SadeeTs Christology, see Dorner, ISnt-
vricklvngsgesch* der Lehre von der Person Christi, Vol. II. pp. 725, 733 sq., etc.
* Beza, Histoire, etc., Tom. I. pp. 172 sq., quoted in Calv. Opera, VoL IX. p. Ivii.
§ 62. THE GALLICAN CONFESSION, 1559. 495
conference in Poissy, 1561. It was revised and ratified at the seventh
National Synod held at La Rochelle, 1571, with Beza as moderator, in
the presence of the Queen of Navarre and her son (Henry IV.), and
Admiral Ooligny. Hence it is also called the < Confession o/Rochette?
Three copies were written on parchment — one for La Roehelle, one for
Geneva, one for B£arn — and signed by the ministers and elders present.1
As to the text, the French is the original, bat it exists in two recen-
sions : the shorter contains thirty-five articles, the larger forty articles.
The latter was sanctioned by the Synod of La Kochelle.2 It was often
printed in different languages, and attached to many French Bibles.
CONTENTS.
The Gallican Confession is a faithful summary of the doctrines of
Calvin. It begins with God (art. 1), his revelation (2), and the Script-
ures as the Word of God and certain rule of our faith, which is above
all customs, edicts, decrees, and councils (3-5). The three oecumenical
Symbols are adopted (5), because they agree with the Word of God.
The Holy Scripture teaches the unity of essence and tripersonality of
God — the Father, who is the first cause, principle, and origin of all
things ; the Son, his eternal Word and Wisdom, eternally begotten by
the Father; the Holy Spirit, his virtue and power eternally proceed-
ing from both (6). God in three co-working persons created all
things, visible and invisible (7) ; and governs all things, even sin and
evil, yet without being the author of sin, but so making use of devils
and sinners as to turn to good the evil which they do, and of which
they alone are guilty (8). Man was created pure and perfect, but
fell by his own guilt, and became totally corrupt and a slave of sin,
although he can still discern good and evil (9). All posterity of
Adam is in bondage to original sin, which is an inherited evil (not an
1 The Geneva copy has been reproduced in fac-simile by Ed. Delessert. See Heppe, p. 51 3.
* '2>J««tfanf que nostre confession de foy est imprimfe de differentes manieres, U Synode
declare que celle-fo est la veritable confession de nos figlises reformfes de France qui com-
mence par ces paroles : " Nous croyons qu'ily a un seul Dteu,"etc., laquelle a est6 dresse'e an
premier Synode national tenu a Paris, h 25 mai de Pan 1559.' Quoted in Calv. Opera^ Vol. IX.
p. Ex., from Aymon. The shorter edition is printed in Opera, Vol. IX. p. 739, under the title
Confession de Foyfaite dJun commun accord par ks JEalises qui sont dispers^es en France et
Sabstienent des idolatries papales. The larger edition is incorporated in the third volume
tt this work. It substitutes in the title for * qui sontj etc., the words lqm de'sirent vivre selon
la puretf de Ttoangile de nostre Seignew Jesus-Christ.' Comp. Heppe, pp. 509 sqq.
496 THE CBEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
imitation merely), and sufficient for condemnation ; even after bap*
tism it is still sin, but the condemnation of it is abolished out of free
grace (10, 11). God, according to his eternal and immutable purpose,
calls out of this corrupt mass those whom he has chosen in the Lord
Jesus Christ, without regard to their merit, to the praise of his glori-
ous grace, leaving the rest in their corruption and condemnation, to
the praise of his eternal justice (12).1
Jesus Christ is our all-sufficient Saviour, and 'made unto us wisdom,
and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption' (13). He as-
sumed our human nature, being God and man in one person, like unto
us in body and soul, yet without sin. We detest all ancient and mod-
ern heresies on the person of Christ, especially that of Servetus (14).
The two natures in the one person of Christ are inseparably united,
and yet remain distinct, so that the divine nature retains its attri-
butes, being uncreated, infinite, and omnipresent, and the human nat-
ure continues finite and circumscribed (15). By the one sacrifice of
Christ on the cross we are reconciled to God, and have the forgiveness
of all our sins (16,17). Our justification is founded on the remission
of sins by the atoning death of Christ, without any merit of our own,
and is apprehended and appropriated by faith alone (18-20). By this
faith we are regenerated, and receive grace to lead a holy life, ac-
cording to the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. Faith, then, of necessity
produces good works, but these works are not accounted to us for
righteousness, which must rest exclusively on the satisfaction of Christ;
otherwise we would never have peace (21, 22). Christ is our only
Advocate before the Father. We therefore reject the intercession
of saints, and all other devices which detract from the all-sufficient
sacrifice of Christ, as purgatory, monastic vows, pilgrimages, auricu-
lar confession, indulgences. We reject them not only on account of
the false idea of merit attached to them, but also because they impose
a yoke upon the conscience (23, 24).
The Church, with the ministry and preaching of the Word of God,
is a divine institution, and must be respected and obeyed. The true
Church is the company of believers who agree to live according to the
Word of God, and to advance in holiness. Nevertheless there may be
* 'Laissnnt les autres en cette meme corruption et condemnation, pour dfmonfrer en &uc to,
justice, comrne aux premiers ilfa.it bare les richesses de sa irdsericorde*
§ 62. THE GALLICAtt CONFESSION, 1559. 497
Hypocrites and reprobates in it, who cau not destroy its character and
title. "We reject the papacy for its many superstitions, idolatries,
and corruptions of the Word and Sacraments. But as some trace of
the true Church is left in the papacy, together with the virtue and
efficacy of baptism, and as the efficacy of baptism does not depend
upon the personal character of the minister, we teach that those who
received baptism in the Romish Church do not need a second baptism.
The true Church should be governed by pastors, elders, and deacons.
All true pastors have the same authority and power under one head,
the only sovereign and universal bishop, Jesus Christ ; and consequent-
ly no Church shall claim any authority or dominion over the other
(25-33).1 The Sacraments are added to the "Word as pledges and seals
of the grace of God to aid and comfort our faith. They are external
signs through which God operates by the power of his Spirit Their
substance and truth is in Christ ; separated from him they are empty
shadows. There are but two Sacraments: Baptism and the Lord's
Supper. Baptism is the permanent pledge and signature of our adop-
tion ; by it we are grafted into the body of Christ, so as to be cleansed
by his blood and renewed by the Holy Ghost. The Lord's Supper is
the witness of onr union with Christ, who truly nourishes us with his
broken body and shed blood through the secret and incomprehensible
power of his Spirit. "We hold that this is done spiritually and by
faith, not because we substitute imagination or thought for reality and
truth, but because this great mystery surpasses our senses and the order
of nature. In Baptism and the Lord's Supper God really gives us what
they represent. Those who approach the Lord's table with true faith,
as a vessel, receive the body and blood of Christ, which nourish the
soul no less than bread and wine nourish the body (34-38).
God has instituted kingdoms, republics, and other forms of govern-
ment, whether hereditary or elective, for the order and peace of society.
He has given the sword to the magistrate for the punishment of sin
And crime, and the transgressions of the first as well as the second
table of the Decalogue.2 We must therefore obey the magistrate,
1 The National Synod of Gap, 1603, inserted an article (31) declaring the pope to be 'the
Antichrist and man of sin,' but the Synod of La Rochelle (1607) struck it out on account of
the protest of the king. Heppe, p. 537.
* *// a mis le glaive en la main des magistrate pour reprimer les pech/s commis rum settle-
ment confre la seconde table des commandements de Diev, mais aussi contre la premiere.' This
clause justifies civil punishment of heresy. It is one of the chief causes why evea orthodox
498 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
pay tribute and taxes with a good and free will, even if the rulers are
unbelievers. We therefore detest those who would resist authority,
establish community of goods, and overthrow the order of justice
(39, 40).
§ 63. THE DECLARATION OF FAITH OF THE BEFORMED OHTJEOH nsr
FRANCE. A.D. 1872.
Literature.
XXX* Synode general de VlSglise Rtformee de France, Premiere session tenue d Paris du 6 Juin au
10 Ju&eU 1872. Prods verbaux et actes publics par Fordre du Synode. Paris, 1S73. (Comp. also the
Vompte JKendu of the secretaries, and the discourses of Lanrens, Pecaut, Ath. Coqnerel, Fontanes, Colani,
and Clamageran, which appeared daring the session.)
Do. Second session tenue a Paris du 20 Novembre au 3 Decembre, 1873. Paris, 1873.
EUGENE BZRSIEK : Histoire du Synode general de VJSglise Reformee de France^ Paris, 6 Juin au 10 Juillet,
1872. Paris, 1872, 2 vols. E. B. attended the Synod of 1872, as a delegate of the Free Church of France,
and gave an account of it in the Journal de Geneve. He has since joined the National Church.
The thirtieth meeting of the General Synod of the Reformed Church
in France forms an epoch in its history. It resumed the series of
twenty-nine National Synods after an interruption of two hundred and
twelve years,1 The last was held at Loudun (Anjou), and was brought
to a close in Jan., 1660, by an order of Louis XIV. prohibiting such
synods in future, on the pretext that they were too expensive and
troublesome, and that their business could be transacted in provincial
synods. Daill£, the moderator, protested in Tain. This act of injus-
tice aimed to destroy the force of the Eeformed communion by break-
ing it up into incoherent sections, and was crowned by the sweeping
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (Oct 22, 1685), which deprived
France of a million of her best citizens, and reduced the remnant of
Protestants to a forbidden sect The history of this dark period is
full of touching and dramatic interest. *The Reformed Church of
the Desert,' under * the most Christian5 King of France, like the primi-
tive Church under the sway of heathen Rome, had to hold its synodical
meetings in the open fields, in mountain-passes, and caverns of the
earth.2 In those meetings the Gallican Confession was read, and
prayer offered for the persecuting king. The spread of infidelity,
which followed as a reaction against the tyranny of superstition and
members of the National Synod of 1872 were opposed to the re-adoption of this Confession
in ML
1 See a list of the French National Synods in Bersier,YoL U. pp. 429 sqq.
* Eight of these forbidden Synods were held between 1726 and 1763.
§ 63. THE FRENCH CONFESSION OF 1872. 4.99
bigotry, brought first an edict of universal toleration under Louis XVI,
(1787), and soon afterwards a total overthrow of Christianity and
social order, until Napoleon, in 1802, restored the Eoman Church as
the religion of the majority of Frenchmen, and the Reformed Church
as the religion of a small though respectable minority, but both under
the pay and control of the State, and without the right of synodical
self-government and discipline.1
This right, denied by the Bourbon, the Napoleon, and the Orleanist
dynasties, was at last restored to the Eeformed Church by the Repub-
lican government under Thiers, who, by an edict of Nov. 29, 1871, au-
thorized the Consistories in Prance and Algiers to elect delegates to a
General Synod. Under these auspices the General Synod convened
in the Temple du Saint-Esprit, at Paris, from June 6th to July 10th,
1872. It consisted of one hundred and eight delegates (forty-nine
ministers and fifty-nine laymen), the legitimate descendants of those
few humble but enthusiastic and heroic pastors and elders who met in
the same city, in 1559, with torture and death staring them in the face.
It was opened by a sermon of pastor Charles Babut of Nimes on John
viii. 14. Charles Edouard Bastie, pastor of Bergerac (Dordogne), was
elected moderator. The object of the Synod was to again effect a
complete organization on the basis of a confession of faith and a sys-
tem of discipline.
But the preparation and adoption of a confession of faith is a more
difficult task in the nineteenth century than it was in the sixteenth.
For, like all other Protestant denominations, the French Church had
during the eighteenth century undergone a theological revolution, and
is still in a process of transition. The doctrinal system of the Gallican
Confession had lost its hold upon a large portion of the clergy and
laity ; and even the most orthodox Protestants could not subscribe that
article which, in harmony with the general sentiment of the sixteenth
1 Napoleon's motive was chiefly of a political character. He needed religion as a basis of
society, and Protestantism as a check upon the ambition of popery ; yet he professed to a
number of Protestant pastors to be a friend of the liberty of conscience, whose * indefinite
empire begins where the empire of law ends/ and he authorized them to brand with the
name of Nero any one of his successors who should violate this liberty. Napoleon III. pro-
fessed the same policy, but threw the weight of his power into the scale of Romanism, and
made a distinction between the private liberty of conscience, which nobody can touch, and
the public liberty of worship, which requires a recognition by the State.
500
THE CREEDS OE CHRISTENDOM.
century, conceded to the civil government (hostile as it then was to
the Huguenots) the power to punish heresy by the sword.1 On the
other hand, that venerable document, which embodied the faith of the
fathers and martyrs of the French Church, could not be ignored with-
out ingratitude and want of self-respect. Under these circumstances
the General Synod, at its thirteenth session, June 20, 1872, adopted a
middle course in the following declaration of faith, proposed by Charles
Bois, Professor of Church History at Montauban :
* Au moment ou elle reprend la suite de ses
Synodes, interrompus depuis tant d'anne'es,
Vfiglise reyormee de France tfprouve, avant
toutes choses, le besom de rendre graces a Dieu^
et de tlmoigner son amour a Je"sus- Christ , son
divin Chef, qui fa soutenue et console durant
le cours de ses Gpreuves.
4 Elle declare par I' organs de, ses repre'sen-
tants qu'elle reste fidele aux principes de foi
et de libert^ sur lesquels elle a ete'fonde'e.
1 The Reformed Church of France, on re-
suming her synodical action, which for so
many years had been interrupted, desires, be-
fore all things, to offer her thanks to God,
and to testify her love to Jesus Christ, her
Divine Head, who has sustained and comfort-
ed her during her successive trials.
4 She declares, through the organ of her rep-
resentatives, that she remains faithful to her
principles of faith and freedom on which she
was founded.
*With her fathers and her martyrs in the
CONFESSION OP RocHELLE,*and with all the
Churches of the Reformation in their respec-
tive creeds, she proclaims THE SOVEREIGN
AUTHORITY OF THE HOLT SCRIPTURES IN
MATTERS OF FAITH, AND SALVATION BY FAITH
IN JESUS CHBIST, THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON
OF GOD, WHO DIED FOR OUB SINS, AND WAS
BAISED AGAIN FOR OTTE JUSTIFICATION.
* She preserves and maintains, as the basis
of her teaching, of her worship and her dis-
cipline, the grand Christian facts represented j
in her religious solemnities, and set forth in '
her liturgies, especially in the Confession of
sins, the APOSTLES' CREED, and in the order
for the administration of the Lord's Supper.*
tAvec ses per es et ses martyrs dans la CON-
FESSION DE LA ROCHELLE, avec toutes les
j&g&ses de la Reformation dans leurs symboles,
elle proclame L'AUTORITE SOUVERAINE DBS
SAINTES [&JRITURES EN MATIERE DE FOI,
ET LE SALUT PAR LA FOI EN JESUS-CHRIST,
FlLS UNIQUE DE DlEU, MOBT POUR NOS OF-
FENSES ET RESSUSCITE POUR NOTRE JUSTIFI-
CATION.
* Elle conserve done et elle maintient, a la
base de son enseignement, de son culte et de sa
discipline, les grands f aits Chretiens repre~sen-
t€s dans ses solennite's religieuses et exprim€s
dans ses liturgies, notamment dans la Confession
des pe'che's, dans le SYMBOL E DES AP&TRES,
et dam la liturgie de la saint Gene. '
This moderate Confession was adopted by 61 votes against 45, or a
majority of only 16 members.3 Among the affirmative votes are those
of Babut, Bois, Breyton, Dhombres, Juillerat and the venerable octo-
genarian Gnizot, whose last public act was a testimony of faith on the
floor of this General Synod of the Church of his fathers, declaring be-
fore his retirement that the Church must affirm its faith in the super-
1 Art. 39 : * God has pnt the sword into the hands of magistrates to suppress crimes against
the first as well as against the second tahle of his Commandments.' It was on that ground
that Servers execution in Geneva for hlasphemy was justified.
* That is, the Gallican Confession as revised and adopted hy the National Synod of La
EocheUe, 1571. See § 62.
* Two members were absent. The official report says: 'Le nombre des votants est de 106.
Majoritf absoltte 54. Le dtpouillement du scrutin donne 6 1 bulletins blancs, 45 bulletins bleus. *
§ 63. THE FRENCH CONFESSION OF 1872.
natural incarnation, the miracles, the resurrection of Christ, or cease to
be a Church. The rationalistic minority, including Colani, Coquerel
(Athanase and Etienne), Pecaut, Rivet, protested against the adoption
of any creed, and asserted the right of each pastor, elder, and private
member of the Church to adhere to whatever creed he may think
proper. Nevertheless, they expressed their determination to hold on
to the National Reformed Church.
The French Government ratified the decision of the Synod (1873).
Subscription to its Confession may be hereafter a qualification of elec-
tors. The liberal party abstained from participation in the second
session of the General Synod held in Nov. and Dec., 1873, and sent in
a request to agree to a peaceful separation; but this request was re-
fused.1
Hence the Rationalists, if they have sufficient interest in positive
Christianity, will be obliged to secede and organize a new society sim-
ilar to the Unitarian body in England and the United States.
A separation is preferable to an unnatural alliance at the expense
of truth and charity. And it would be all the more honorable if it be
done with an equitable division of Chiirch property.
The acts of the General Synod of the National Church had the
double effect of virtually excluding the rationalistic party, and of at-
tracting to a closer fellowship the Free Church, which, like the Free
Churches in French Switzerland, represents modern evangelical Cal-
vinism, independent of state support and state control.2
1 The following action was taken by the Synod in reference to the petition of the minority:
'The Assembly, considering that the General Synod is the high court of the Chnrch, and so
acknowledged by the State ; considering that the decisions arrived at in reference to the
Confession of Faith reproduce the doctrines on which the Eeformed Church of France was
founded, and that, therefore, all who reject them are ipso facto without the pale of the
Church; considering that none can be constrained to remain in a Church the creed of which
he rejects, and from which he wishes to retire— every man having entire liberty to remain or
separate himself, according to the dictation of his conscience ; considering that the Synod has
taken no resolutions to restrict the liberty of any, especially none to prevent the retirement
of any pastors and members in order to found another Church, and none to prevent such per-
sons from obtaining the recognition of the State, the advantages of the concordat, and an
equitable share of ecclesiastical temporalities ; considering, lastly, that it is not the business
of the General Synod itself to inaugurate the formation of a new Church, its mission being to
construct, and not to rend asunder, passes to the order of the day/
* The Free Church, or * Union of the Evangelical Churches in France" (/' Union des fylises
toang&iques de France), to which Pressense, Fish, and Bersier belong, owes its existence to
the rationalism in the National Church which, at the synodical meeting held after the Febru-
502 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
§ 64. THE BELGIO CONFESSION. A.D. 1561.
Literature.
L EDITIONS OF THE CONFESSION:.
LA CONFESSION DE Foi DBS £GLISES KJ£FORM£ES WALLONNES ET FLAMANDES (Apoc. ii.IO ; 1 Pierre ili. 15),
Reimprimee par decision de to Societe Evanyelique Beige. Bruxelles, 1S50 (Librairie ChrǤtienne fivange.
liqne, Rue de 11mp6ratrice, 33). The authentic French text, as revised by the Synod of Dort, with a brief
historical and critical introduction.
The Latin text is found in different recensions, in the Corpus et Syntagma (1612 and 1654) ; in the Actb
of the Synod of Dort; the Oxford Sylloge; Augnsti's Collect (the text of Port) ; Niemeyer's Collect, (the
translation of Hommius, 1513, with various readings).
English translations, likewise differing in minor details, in the Harmony ofProt. Conf. ; in the Consti-
tution of the Reformed (Dutch) Church in America (very good) ; and a new one made in 1862 by Owen
Jones: Church of the Living God, London, 1S65, pp. 203-t237 (incomplete and inaccurate).
German translation in Beck (Vol. I. pp. 293 sqq.), and Bockel (pp. 480 sqq.).
A Greek translation by Jac. Kevins (Pastor of the Church at Deventer) : 'jB/cKXti^s* rr}? BeX-^r Ifo/io-
A6-yn<m, Ultra jecti, 1660 ; earlier eds. in 1623 and 1653.
Comp. HKKZOG: art. Belgische Confession, in his Real-Encyldop. 2d ed. YoL IE. p. 238 ,- M. GOEBEL: art
II. HlSTOEIOAL.
H. GBOTTUS : Annales et Hist, de rebus Belgicis (1 556-1609). Amstel. 1658.
H. VENBMA: Tnstttutiones histories ecclesice V, et N. T. Tom. VII. p. 252 (ad ann. 1563).
J. LX LONG : Kort htetwisch Verhaal van den oorsprong der Xederlandschen Gereformeerden Kerken ondert
Kruys, beneffens atte derselver Leeren Diewt-Boeken. Amst. 1741.
GEBH. BEANX>T (Arminian) : Historie der Reformatie in en omtrent deNederlanden. Amst. 1671-74, 4 vols.
(Also in French : Eistoire de la Reformation dee Pays-Bas, 1726, and in English by Chamberlayne, Lon-
don, 1720-23, 4 vols.).
YPEY EN DEBMOUT : Gesehiedeniasen der yederlandsche ffervormde K&rk. Breda, 1819-27, 4 vols
VAN DEB KEMP: De Sere der Nedertondscte Herwrmde Eerie. Rotterd. 1830.
GAOHAKD: Correspondance de Guittawme U Taciturne, Prince d"0range, 1847-58, 6 vols.
OBOEN VAN PBINSTBBEB: Archives ou Correspondance vn&dite de la mateon & Orange-Nassau (1552-84),
1887-61, 10 vols. ; second series (1584-1688), 6 vols. 1857-61.
WM. H. PBESOOTT: History of the Reign of Philip IL, King of Spain. New York, 1855-58, 3 vols.
A. HBNNX : Hist du regne de Charles 7. en jBetgique. Brox. 1858 sqq. 10 Tom.
J. L. MOTLEY : The Rise of the Dutch Republic, London and New York, 1856, 3 vols. By the same: His-
tory of the United Netherlands, New York, 1861y 4 vols.
M. KOCH : Unterauch. uber die Emptrrung der Niederlande, Leipz. 1860.
F. EOLZWAETH : Abfall der Niedertonde. Schaffhausen, 1865-72, 3 vols.
THE EEFOEMATION IN THE NETHEELANDS.
The Low Countries3 conquered from the sea by indomitable energy —
the land of Erasmus, of free cities, of inventions, and flourishing com-
ary Revolution of 1848 (without government sanction, and hence without legislative effect), re-
fused to acknowledge the divinity of Christ. This induced Frederick Monod to secede, while
his more distinguished and equally conscientious brother Adolph remained, to the benefit of the
National body, which since that time has become more orthodox. The Union manifests a good
deal of missionary zeal and literary activity, and reacts favorable on the Established Church.
Bersier, in his History of the General Synod, expresses himself satisfied with its results (close
of Introduction to Vol. I. p. ML); 'Nos sympathies personneUes sont avec la droite dans les
trais grandes questions que le Synods a eu a r€soudre : celle de I'cwtorite' du Synode, celle de
la declaration defoi, celle enfin des conditions defoi et de doctrine auxquelles les pasteurs et
les e'lecteurs devront desormais souscrire. Nous estimons que par ces trois votes la majority a
accompli des actes n&essaires, et que si", par un abus de pouvoir que nous ne voulons pas pre"-
voiry le gouuernement refusait de ratifier son csuvre [the ratification has since been granted],
elle aurait ntanmoins pose" les fondations futures sur lesquelles, avec ou sans appui de I'JStat,
VBglise reybrme'e devra desormais s^lever.1
5 64. THE BELGIC CONCESSION, 1561. 503
merce — was flooded, through merchants, soldiers, and books, with Prot-
estant ideas from Germany and France, as with waters from the Ehine
and the Meuse. Already in 1521 Charles V.* who afterwards regret-
ted that he had not burned Luther at Worms, issued from that city an
edict for the suppression of heresy in this the most valuable of his in-
herited dominions. To Belgium belongs the honor of having furnished
tie first martyrs of evangelical Protestanism in Henry Yoes and John
Esch, two Augustinian monks, who were burned at the stake in Brus-
sels, July 1, 1523, reciting the Apostles' Creed and singing the Te Deum^
and who were celebrated by Luther in a stirring hymn.1 This was
the fiery signal of a fearful persecution, which reached its height under
Philip II. of Spain, and the executor of his bloody designs, the Duke
of Alva, but resulted at last in the establishment of national independ-
dence and of the Eeformed Church in a large part of the Nether-
lands. The number of her martyrs exceeds that of any other Protest-
ant Church during the sixteenth century, and perhaps that of the whole
primitive Church under the Roman empire.2 During the ever-memor-
able conflict under William of Orange, who was assassinated by a fa-
natical papist in 1584:, and his second son Maurice — an able military
commander and strict Calvinist (d. 1625) — the Bible, with the Belgic
Confession and Heidelberg Catechism, was the spiritual guide and com-
forter of the Protestants, and fortified them against the assaults of the
enemy. Calvinism, which fears God and no body else, inspired that
heroic courage which triumphed over the political and religious des-
potism of Spain, and raised Holland to an extraofdinary degree of
commercial and literary eminence.3
1 See a part of it, in English and German, quoted by Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 311 (Am. ed.).
a Grotius estimates the number of Protestant martyrs in Holland, under one reign, at one
hundred thousand. Gibbon (History of the Decline, etc., at the close of Ch. XVI.) confi-
dently asserts that * the number of Protestants who were executed by the Spaniards in a sin-
gle province and a single reign, far exceeded that of the primitive martyrs in the space of
three centuries, and of the Roman empire.' And Motley (History of the Rise of the Dutch
Republic, VoL II. p. 504) says of the terrible reign of Alva: * The barbarities committed amid
the sack and ruin of those blazing and starving cities are almost beyond belief; unborn infants
were torn from the living bodies of their mothers ; women and children were violated by
the thousands, and whole populations burned and hacked to pieces by soldiers in every mod*
which cruelty in its wanton ingenuity could devise.'
3 It is strange that Motley, in his great works on the Kise, and the History of the Dutdb
Republic, ignores the Belgic Confession, and barely mentions the name of Guido de Bres.
YOL. L— K K
504 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
GUIDO DE BRES.
The chief author of the Belgic Confession is Guroo (or Guy,Wido)
DE BEES, a noble evangelist and martyr of the Reformed Church ot
the Netherlands. He was born about 1523 at Mons, in Hennegau,
educated in the Roman Church, and by diligent reading of the Script-
ures converted to the evangelical faith. Expelled from his country,
he sought refuge in London under Edward VL3 where he joined the
Belgic fugitives, and prepared himself for the ministry. Afterwards
he studied at Lausanne, and became a traveling evangelist in South-
western Belgium and Northern France — from Dieppe to Sedan, from
Yalenciennes to Antwerp. After the conquest of French Flanders he
was, together with a younger missionary from Geneva, Peregrin de la
Grange, taken prisoner, put in chains, and hanged on the last day of
May, 1567, for disobedience to the commands of the court at Brussels,
and especially for the distribution of the holy communion in the Re-
formed congregations. From prison the youthful martyr wrote letters
of comfort to his brethren, his old mother, his wife, and his children,
and met his death as if it were a marriage-feast.1 In his proper home
Protestantism was completely suppressed, but in the neighboring coun-
tries of Holland and the Lower Rhine it spread and flourished.
THE BELGIC CONFESSION".
The Belgic Confession was prepared in 1561 by Guido de Br&s,
with the aid of Adrien de Saravia (professor of theology in Leyden,
afterwards at Cambridge, where he died, 1613), H. Modetus (for some
time chaplain of William of Orange), and G. Wingen, in the French
language, to prove the Reformed faith from the Word of God.2 It
was revised by Francis Junius, of Bourges (1545-1602) — a student of
1 See, on Guy de Bres, the enlarged edition of Crespin's Histoire des Martyrs, Geneve, 1617,
pp. 731-730, and the Brussels edition of the Conf. defoi, p. 19.
* Saravia, in a letter to Uytenbogardus (Apr. 13, 1612), qnoted by Niemeyer (Proleg. p. lii.)
and Gieseler (Ck. Sift. Vol. IV. p. 314, Am.ed.)? says: * Ego me illius confessionis ex pri-
mis unwnfuisse avctoribus profiteer, strut et ffermannus Modetus: nescio an plures stint $u~
perstites. If la primofutt conscripta Gallico sermone a Christi servo et martyre Guidone de Bres,
sec? antequam ederetur ministris verbi Z>et\ quos potuit nancisct, illam comwunicavit : et emen-
dandum si quid <£*/>£fcertf?, addendum, detrahendum proposuit, ut umus opus censeri non de-
beat. Sect n*mo eorurn, qui manum apposu&runt, umyuam copitawt Jidei canonem edere, verwt
e& canonicis scriptis Jidew suam
§ 64. THE BELGIC CONFESSION, 1561. 505
Calvin, pastor of a Walloon congregation at Antwerp, and afterwards
professor of theology at Leyden— who abridged the sixteenth article,
and sent a copy to Geneva and other churches for approval. It was
probably printed in 1562, or at all events in 1566, and afterwards trans-
lated into Dutch, German, and Latin. It was presented to the bigoted
Philip II., 1562, in the vain hope of securing toleration, and with an
address which breathes the genuine spirit of martyrdom. The peti-
tioners protest against the charge of being rebels, and declare that not-
withstanding they number more than a hundred thousand, and are ex-
posed to the most cruel oppression, they obey the Government in all
lawful things ; but that rather than deny Christ before men they would
c offer their backs to stripes, their tongues to knives, their mouths to
gags, and their whole bodies to the fire, well knowing that those who
follow Christ must take his cross and deny themselves.31
The Confession was publicly adopted by a Synod at Antwerp (1566),
then at Wesel (1568), more formally by a Synod at Emden (1571)2, by
a national Synod at Dort (1574), another at Middelburg (1581), and
again by the great Synod of Dort, April 29, 1619. But inasmuch as the
Arminians had demanded partial changes, and the text had become
confused, the Synod of Dort submitted the French, Latin, and Dutch
texts to a careful revision. Since that time the Belgic Confession, to-
gether with the Heidelberg Catechism, has been the recognized symbol
of the Reformed Churches in Holland and Belgium.3 It is also the
doctrinal standard of the Reformed (Dutch) Church in America,
which holds to it even more tenaciously than the mother Church in
flie Netherlands.4
1 The address is given in full by Bockel, 1. c, pp. 480-484.
3 The Brussels ed. (p. viii.) says : *£e 5 Octobre, en 1571, ilfut statu&paar le premier synode
national des Eglises wallonnes et Jlamandes te"nu a Embden^ que cette Confession serait signte
par tous lesmembres presents cat dit synode etpar tons ceux qui seraient admis au saint ministered
3 The Socie'te' faangelique or EgUse Chre'tienne missionnaire beige requires from its ministers
a qualified subscription to the Belgic Confession with * une reserve prfalable en repoussant ce
qui dans la Confession beige regarde I exercise dupouvoir civil en mature defai.'
* The following formula of subscription is required from ministers of the Dutch Reformed
Church in America: * We, the underwritten, Ministers of the Word of God, residing within the
bounds of the Classis of N. N., do hereby sincerely, and in good conscience before the Lord, de-
clare by this our subscription, that we heartily believe, and are persuaded, that all the articles
and points of doctrine contained in the [Belgic] Confession and [Heidelberg] Catechism of the
Reformed [Dutch] Church, together with the explanation of some points of the aforesaid doc-
trine made in the National Synod held at Dordrecht in the year 1610, do fully agree with the
Word of God. We promise, therefore, diligently to teach, and faithfully to defend the afore-
§06 THE CBEEDS OF CHEISTENDOM.
COKTENTS.
The Belgic Confession contains thirty-seven Articles, and follows
the order of the Gallican Confession, but is less polemical and more
full and elaborate, especially on the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Church,
and the Sacraments.1 It is, upon the whole, the best symbolical state-
ment of the Calvinistic system of doctrine, with the exception of the
Westminster Confession.
The text has undergone several modifications as regards the wording
and length, but not as regards the doctrine,
The French text must be considered as the original.3 Of the first
edition of 1561 or 1562 no copies are known. The Synod of Antwerp,
in Sept., 1580, ordered a precise parchment copy of the revised text (of
Junius) to be made for its archives, which copy had to be signed by
every new minister. This manuscript has always been regarded in
the Belgic churches as the authentic document3 The Synod of Dort
ordered a new revision, with a view to bring the Latin, French, and
Dutch texts into harmony on the basis of the manuscript copy of 1580.
The Leyden edition of 1669 gives in two parallel columns the original
said doctrine, without either directly or indirectly contradicting the same by our public preach-
ing or writings. We declare, moreover, that we not only reject all errors that militate against
this doctrine, and particularly those which are condemned in the above-mentioned Synod, but
that we are disposed to refute and contradict them, and to exert ourselves in keeping the
Church pure from such errors. And if hereafter any difficulties or different sentiments re-
specting the aforesaid doctrine should arise in our minds, we promise that we will neither
publicly nor privately propose, teach, or defend the same, either by preaching or by writing,
until we have first revealed such sentiment to the Consistory, Classis, or Synod, that the same
may be there examined/ etc.
1 Ebrard (Handbuch der Kirchen- wtd Dogmengesch. Vol. m. p. 319) says that besides the
Gallican Confession as the basis, use was made also of the Friesian Confession of Utenhoven;
which the English exiles brought with them to Emden, and of the Catechism of Laski.
3 It is entitled, * Confession de Foy faicte cCvn comniun accord pour lesfideles gui conver-
gent es Pays-Bos, lesquels dtsirent vivre selon la purete" de TEvangile de nostre Seigneur
J&us-Cfaist. ' This title is followed by two mottoes— the one from Apoc. ii. 10 : * Sois fidele
Jusqttes a la mart et je te donneray la couronne de vie;1 the other from 1 Pet. iii. 15 : i Soyez
tousjours apparetilez a respondre a ckacun qm vous demande raison de Vesper ance gui est ei
vous.1 On the second leaf there is over the head of the first article the brief title, * Confession
vrayement Chr&ienne contenant le sommaire de la doctrine de Dieu et salut tternel de Vame.'
3 The Brussels ed. says (p. 39) : 'C'est probablement dapres la copie de Junius que cette
Confession a &€ imprimte dans le livre des Martyrs de Crespin. Le text de Crespin ne differs
pas de celw du manvscrit autkentique.*
§ 64. THE BELGIC CONFESSION, 1561. 507
text and the revised text of Dort. A Eotterdam edition of the Psalter,
1 787, carefully reprints the original text in the old spelling from the man-
uscript, with the changes of Dort in notes. The Brussels edition of 1850
presents the ancient text of 1580, as revised at Dort, in modern French.1
Next in authority is the Latin text, but of this there are likewise
several recensions, a shorter and a larger. The first Latin translation
was made from the revised French copy of Francis Junius, probably
by Beza, or under his direction, for the Harmonw Confessionum,
Geneva, 1581 (distributed under different heads, with the other Con-
fessions).2 The same passed into the first edition of the Corpus et
Syntagma Oonfessionum, Geneva, 1612. Another translation was pre-
pared, 1618, for the use of the Synod of Dort, by Festus Hommius,
pastor in Leyden, and one of the scribes of that Synod.3 This text
was revised in the following year by that Synod, and thus approved
and incorporated with its acts in the 146th session.4 The revision of
Dort was reproduced in the second edition of the Corpus et Syntagma
Conf., 1654.5 The excellent English version in use in the Reformed
1 This careful edition, issued by the Evangelical Society of Belgium, is reproduced in the
third volume of this work, together with the English version BOW used hy the Dutch Reformed
Church in America. Both agree, sentence for sentence.
8 See Note critique at the close of the Brussels edition, p. 39 : c Junius envoy a une copie de
vette revision a Geneve. Theodore de Beza la fit imprimer [in French ?]. (Test lui, sans
loute, qui la traduisit en latin> comme eUe se trouve dans "VHarmonia Confessionum,"
Geneva, 1581.' That this was the first Latin translation is stated in- the Harmonia, p. 3 :
''Belgica, Galilee omnium Belgicarum Ecclesiarum nomine anno 1566 edita, ac demum anno
1579 [1571?] in publica Belgii Synodo repetita et confirmata, Belgicegue versa. Nunc
denigue a nobis etiam Latine expressa.*
8 'Confessio ecclesiarum reformatarum in Belgio. . . . in usum futures synodi nationalis
latine edidit et colkgit Festus Hommius.9 Ludg, Batav. 1618. Niemeyer (pp. 360 sqq.) gives
this translation, which more nearly agrees with the older version, and he adds some read-
ings from the first edition of the Carpus et Syntagma.
* See the extracts from the Acts of the 144th Session, April 29, 1 619, in Niemeyer, p. Iv.
* Under the title Ecclesiarum Belgicarum Christiana atque Orthodoxa Confessio9 summam
doctrines deDeo et ceterna animarum salute complect ens, prout in Synodo Dortrechtana fuit re-
cognita et approbata. The articles are numbered, but have no titles. The difference between
this and the first Latin translation may be judged from the following specimen :
HAKMONIA CONFBSSIONUM, 1581 (p. 36).
Art. I. Corde credimus^ et ore confitemur,
unlearn, esse et simplicem essentiam spiritualem,
quam Deum vocamus^ (sternum, incomprehen-
sibilem, incojispicuum, immutabilem, infinitum,
qui totus est sapiens, fonsque omnium bonorum
uberrimus.
CoKPUS BT SYNTAGMA CONFESSIONUM, ed. II.,
1654 (p. 129).
Art. I. Corde credimus, et ore confitemur
OMNES, unicam esse et simplicem essentiam
spiritual em j quam Deum vocamus, EUMQUfi
ceternum, incomprehensibilem^ invisibilem., in*
finitum, OMNIPOTENTEM, SDMME SAPIENTEH,
JUSTUM BT BONTJM, omnium que bonorum fonten
uberrimum.
508 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Dutch. Church of America is made from the Latin text of the SynocJ
of Dort.
§ 65. THE ARMENIAN CONTROVERSY. A.D. 1604^1619.
Literature.
I. AEMINIAN SOURCES.
ScHpta adversaria COI-LATIONIS HAGIENSIS. In Dutch, Gravenhage, 1612 ; in Latin, by Petrus BertinSj
Leyden, 1616. This contains the authentic text of the Eemonstrance.
RBAIONSTBANTIA, or the Five Articles of 1610. A German translation in Biickel's Evang. Reform.
Sekenntniss-Schriften. Leipzig, 1847, pp. 645-553.
SIMON EPISOOPITJS (Prof, at Leyden, 1612 ; expelled by the Synod of Dort, 1618 ; Prof, at the Remonstrant
Seminary, 1634 ; d. 1643) : Confessio sen Declarafio Pastor um qui Rewiowtrantes vocantur, etc.. Harderw.
1621 in Dutch, 1622 in Latin (German transl. in B.>ckel, 1. c. pp. 572-640). Also his Apologia pro Confer
sione Remonstr., 1629. Both are included in the works of Episcopius, 2d ed. London, 1678, Vol. II. Part
ILpp.69sqq.; 95sqq.
AOTA ET SOEIPTA SYNODAMA DoRDBAOENA ministrorum RJEMONSTBANTIUM in fozd&rato Belgfo. 2 Cor.
xiii. 8. Harderwiici, 1620. This volume (a copy of which is in the Union Theol. Seminary Library) con-
tains the official acts and dogmatic writings of the Remonstrants in explanation and defense of their
five articles against the decisions of the Synod of Dort, including a lengthy exposition of the ninth
chapter of Romans and other Scripture passages quoted against them.
JAO. ABMINIUS (156U-16D&) : Disputatwnes publics et privates. Ludg. Bat. 1614, 2d ed. (with the Oratto
Pcfri Bertii de vita et obitu A rwumV.). AXMIN. Opera, Logd. Bat 1629, and other editions. English trans-
lation of The Work* of JAMES ABMINIUS, by James Nichols and William Nichols. London, 1825, 1828, and
1875* 3 vols.
Also the writings of EPISOOPIUS (d. 1643) ; GBOTHJS (d.1645); LOIBOEOH (d. 1714); CLEEIOUS (d. 1736);
WETSTKIN (d. 1754), and other distinguished Armiuian scholars. Comp. A. TAN CATTENBUBGH : Bibli-
otheca Seriptorum Remonstrantium. Ams*t. 1728.
II. ANTI-ABMIVIAN OB CAI.VINISTIO SOUBCES.
The Acts and Proceedings of the NATIONAL SYNOD OF DOBT : Acta Synodi Nationalis, in nomine Domini
voftriJesu Christi, avtoritate ordinum generalium Fcederati Bdgii provinciarumj Itortrechti hdbitce anno
1818 et 1619. Accedunt pleni&tima de quinque articulis theologorum judida. Dord. 1620, 4to. (The judida
theologorum are omitted in the Elzevir folio ed. of the same date.)
The Suffrage of the Divines of Great Britain concerning the Articles of the Synod of Dort, signed "by them
i»1619 CfLond.1624].
Reports of BEEITLNGEB, the Hessian, and other foreign delegates.
III. HISTORICAL AND CONTSOVBESIAI*
P. MOLTNJRTIB (Calvinist) : Anatome Arminianismi. Leyden, 1619, etc.
N. VBDBL (Calv.) : Arcana ArminianismL Leyden, 1632-34, 4 Parts, 4to.
PXLTICS: Harmonia Remonstrantium et Socinianorwm. Ludg. 1633.
BYSSBN: DeprcedestmationecontraRemmstrantesetJewitas. Gorchum, 1660.
SAM. RHBTORFOBT: Examen Arminianfcmi. Utrecht, 1668.
JANUS UYTXXBOGAKET (Anninian) : Kerckelijcke Historie, etc. Rotterdam, 1647.
JAO. T&IGLANDIUS (Calviaist) : Kerckelijcke Gesehiedenissen van de vereen. Nederlanden. Leyden, 1650.
Jo. HALESII Historia Coneilii Dordraceni; J. L. Moshemius vertit,varii8 obeervationibus et vita Halesii
auxit Hamburg, 1724. John Hales (1584-1656), Canon of Windsor— called *the Ever-memorable '—at-
tended the Synod of Dort, by which he became a convert to Arminianism, and wrote Golden Remains;
Letters from the Synod of Dort; Acta Synodi Dordr. ; Sententia Arminii; see Works, 1765, 3 vols.
PETKE HEYLIN (a friend of Land and Anninian, d. 1662) : Historia Quinquarticularis; or, a Declara-
tion oftheJitdgmeut of the Western Churche*, and more particularly of the Chwrch of England, in the Five
Controverted Points, reproached in these last times "by the name of Arminianism. London, 1660, in 3 Parts.
GRRHAED BBANDT (Remonstrant preacher at Amsterdam, d. 1685) : Historie cfer Reformatie (History of
the Reformation in and about the Low CowntrieStfrom the Eighth Century down to the Synod of Dort}, Amst
16T7-1704, 4 vols. Very full on the Remonstrant controversy. An English translation, by Chamberlayne,
London, 1720-23, 4 vols. fol. (The last volume gives the history from 1600 to 1623.) Also In French, 1726.
ZBLTNEB (d. 1738): Breviarium controversiancm cum Remonstrantitots agitatarum. Norimb. and
Altdorf, 1719.
JAO. REGENBOOG: Hist der Remonstranten, in Dutch, Amsterd. 1774 eqq., 3 vols.; in German, Lemgo,
1741-S4.
G. S. FRANKS: Historia dogmatum Arminianorum. Kiel, 1814.
THOMAS SOOTT: The Articles of the Si/nod of Dort; with a History of Events vMush made way for that
Synod, etc. London, ISIS. (Calvinistic.)
§ 65. THE ARMENIAN CONTROVEESY, 1604-1619. 509
JAMES NICHOLS (Arminian) : Calvinism and Arminianism compared in their Principlet and Tendency.
Loud. 1S24, 2 vols. (An ill-digested mass of materials.)
M. GEA.F : B&ttrdge zur Gexchichte der Si/node von Dordrecht. Basle, 1835.
D. DE BEAT : L'histoire de nSrfline Amtinienne. Strasburg, 1836.
JOANNES TIDEMAN (Remonstrant preacher at Rotterdam) : De Remonslrantie en het Remonstrantisme.
Htetorisch onderzoek. Te Haarlem, 1851 (pp. 131).
H. HEPPE (Melanchthonian) : Historia Synodi Nat. Dordr. in Niedner's Zeitechrift fur hist. Theol., 1853,
pp. 227-327. Contains the Report of the Hessian deputies to Landgrave Moritz, with Introduction and
Notes. The same : Art. Dovtrecht in Herzog's Real-EncykL Vol. IH. p. 485.
ALEX. SOHWEIZEB: Centraldogmen. Zurich, Vol. IL (1S56) pp. 31-201.
G. FRANK : Geschichte der Protest. Theol Leipz. 1SG2, Vol. I. pp. 403 sqq.
M. SOHNEOKENBUEGER (independent, d. 1848) : Vorlesungen fiber die Lehrtegri/e der Ideineren protest.
Kirchenparteien, ed. by Hundeshagen. Frankf. a. M. 1863, pp. 5-26.
WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM (Calvinist) : Historical Theology. Edinb. 1864, Vol. II. ch. xxv. pp. 3T1-513.
E. BOHL (Calvinist) : Stutter der Erinnerung an die DordrecJder Synode, 250 Jahre nach ihrem Z-w
saminentritt alien Freunden der reform. Lehre gewidmet. Detmold, 1868 (41 pp.).
JOHN L. MOTLEY : The Life and Death of John of Barneveld, Advocate of HoUand. N. Y. 1S74, 2 vols.
chs. viii. and xiv. Motley gives the political history of the period, but barely touches on the Synod of
Dort, and with strong antipathy to Calvinism.
Comp. also WHEDON (Methodist), art. Arminianismt and A. A. HODGE (Presbyterian), Calvinism, both
in Johnson's Cyclop.Vol. I. (1S74), representing both sides. Also art. Armintanism, in M'Clintock and
Strong's Cyclop. Vol. I. p. 412 (Methodist).
The Arminian controversy is the most important which toot place
within the Reformed Church. It corresponds to the Pelagian and the
Jansenist controversies in the Catholic Chnrch. It involves the prob-
lem of ages, which again and again has baffled the ken of theolo-
gians and philosophers, and will do so to the end of time: the re-
lation of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. It started
with the doctrine of predestination, and turned round five articles or
6 knotty points' of Calvinism ; hence the term ' quinquarticular' con-
troversy. Calvinism represented the consistent, logical, conservative
orthodoxy ; Arminianism an elastic, progressive, changing liberalism.
Calvinism triumphed in the Synod of Dort, and excluded Arminian-
ism. So, in the preceding generation, strict Lutheranism had tri-
umphed over Melanchthonianism in the Formula of Concord. But
in both Churches the spirit of the conquered party rose again .from
time to time within the ranks of orthodoxy, to exert its moderating
and liberalizing influence or to open new issues in the progressive
march of theological science.
OBIGIK AND PROGRESS OF AHMTNIAKISM TELL 1618.
The Arminian controversy arose in Holland towards the close of
the heroic conflict with foreign political and ecclesiastical despotism.
This very contest of forty-five years5 duration, so full of trials and
afflictions, stimulated the intellectual and moral energies of an honest,
earnest, freedom-loving, and tenacious people, and made the Protest-
$10 THE CREEDS OF CHBISTENDOM.
ant part of the Netherlands the first country in Christendom for in
dnstry, commerce, education, and culture. The Universities of Ley-
den, founded in 1575, as the city's reward for its heroic resistance
to Spain, Franecker (1585), Groningen (1612), Utrecht (1636), and
Harderwyk (1648) soon excelled older schools of learning. The gen-
eral prosperity of the United Provinces excited the admiration of the
foreign delegates to the Synod of Dort, where they found clean and
stately mansions, generous hospitality, and every comfort and luxury
which commerce could bring from all parts of the earth. This was
the soil on which the Calvinistic system was brought to its severest test
The controversy was purely theological in its nature, but owing to the
intimate connection of Church and State it became inevitably entan-
gled in political issues, and shook the whole country. The Reformed
Churches in France, Switzerland, Germany, England, and Scotland
took a deep interest in it, and sided, upon the whole, with the Cal-
Yinistie party; while the Lutheran Church sympathized to some ex-
tent with the Arininian.
The founder of Arminianism, from whom it derives its name, is
James Anninius (1560-1609).1 He studied under Beza at Geneva,
was elected minister at Amsterdam (1588), and then professor of theol-
ogy at Leyden (1603), as successor of Francis Junius, who had taken
part in the revision of the Belgic Confession. He was at first a strict
Calvinist, but while engaged in investigating and defending the Calvin-
istic doctrines against the writings of Dirik Yolckaerts zoon Koorn-
heert,2 at the request of the magistrate of Amsterdam, he found the
arguments of the opponent stronger than his own convictions, and be-
came a convert to the doctrine of universal grace and of the freedom
of will. He saw in the seventh chapter of Eomans the description of
a legalistic conflict of the awakened but unregenerate man, while Au-
1 His Dutch name is Jacob van Hermanns or Hermanson, Hannensen.
3 Koornheert was Secretarius at Haarlem, and a forerunner of the Bemonstrants (d. 1590).
He attacked the doctrine of Calvin and Beza on predestination and the punishment of heretics
(1578), wrote against the Heidelberg Catechism (1583), and advocated toleration and a re-
duction of the number of articles of faith. His works were published at Amsterdam, 1630.
See Bayle, art. Koornheert, and Schweizer, Vol. II. p. 40. Another forerunner of Arminian-
ism was Caspar Koolhaas, preacher in Leyden, who was protected by the civil magistrate,
but excommunicated by a provincial Synod at Haarlem, 1582. It should be remembered
also that Erasmus, the advocate of free-will, against Luther, was held in high esteem in his
native country, and that the views of CastelKo, Bolsec, and Huber had made some impression.
§ 65. THE AKMINIAN CONTKOVEKSY, 1604-1610. 5H
gustine and the Beformers referred it to the regenerate. He denied
the decree of reprobation, and moderated the doctrine of original sin.
He advocated a revision of the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg
Catechism. He came into open conflict with his supralapsarian col-
league, Francis Gomar (1563-164:5), who had conferred on him the
degree of doctor of divinity, but now became his chief antagonist.
Hence the strict Calvinists were called * Gomarists.' The controversy
soon spread over all Holland. Arminius applied to the Government
to convoke a synod (appealing, like the Donatists, to the very power
which afterwards condemned him), but died of a painful disorder be-
fore it convened.1 He was a learned and able divine; and during
the controversy which embittered his life he showed a meek, Christian
spirit. * Condemned by others/ said Grotius, * he condemned none.'
His views on anthropology and soteriology approached those of the
Melanchthonian school in the Lutheran Church, but the tendency of
his theology was towards a latitudinarian liberalism, which developed
itself in his followers.2
After his death the learned Simon Episcopius (Bisschop, 1583-1 6M),
his successor in the chair of theology at Leyden, afterwards profess-
or in the Arminian College at Amsterdam,3 and the eloquent Janus
Hytenbogaert (1557-1 6M), preacher at the Hague, and for some time
chaplain of Prince Maurice, became the theological leaders of the
Arminian party. The great statesman, John van Olden Barneveldt
(1549-1619), Advocate-General of Holland and Friesland, and Hugo
Grotius (1583-1645), the most comprehensive scholar of his age, equally
distinguished as statesman, jurist, theologian, and exegete, sympathized
with the Arminians, gave them the weight of their powerful influence,
1 In the same year (1609) the Pilgrim Fathers of New England arrived in Leyden, where
they enjoyed religious freedom till their departure for America (1620). Arminius was born
in the same year in which Melanchthon died (1560).
3 Caspar Brandt : Historia vita J. Arminii, ed. by Gerhard Brandt (son of the author),
with additions by Mosheim, 1725 ; EngL transl. by Guthrie, Lond. 1854. Bangs's Life of
Arntiitius, N. York, 1843. Mosheim calls him c a man whom even his enemies commend for
his ingenuity, acuteness, and piety.' His motto was, 'A good conscience is a paradise,' In
his testament (see extract in Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 508, note 7), he affirms that he diligently
labored to teach nothing but what he could prove from the Scriptures, and what tended to
edification and peace among Christians, excepting popery, *with which,1 he says, * there can
be no unity of faith, no bond of piety and peace.* Grotius was much milder towards the
Catholics.
3Limborch: Vita Episcopii. Amst 170J
512 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
and advocated peace and toleration ; but they favored a republican
confederacy of States rather than a federal State tending to monarchy,
against the ambitious designs of Maurice, the Stadtholder and military
leader of the Republic, who wished to consolidate his power, and by
concluding a truce with Spain (1609) they incurred the suspicion of dis-
loyalty.1 The Calvinists were the national and popular party, and em-
braced the great majority of the clergy. They stood on the solid basis
of the recognized standards of doctrine. At the same time they ad-
vocated the independent action of the Church against the latitudinarian
Erastianism of their opponents.
The Arminians formularized their creed in Five Articles (drawn up
by Uytenbogaert), and laid them before the representatives of Holland
and West Friesland in 1610 under the name of Remonstrance, signed
by forty-six ministers. The Oalvinists issued a Counter -Remonstrance.
Hence the party names Remonstrants (Protestants against Calvinism),
and Counter-Revionstrants (Calvinists, or Gomarists). A Conference
was held between the two parties at the Hague (Gollatio Hagiensis) in
1611, but without leading to an agreement. A discussion at Delft, 1613,
and the edict of the States of Holland in favor of peace, 1614, pre-
pared by Grotius, had no better result.
THE STOOD OF DOET.
At last, after a great deal of controversy and complicated prepara-
tions, the National Synod of Dort2 was convened by the States-General,
Nov, 13, 1618, and lasted till May 9, 1619. It consisted of eighty-four
members and eighteen secular commissioners. Of these fifty-eight were
Dutchmen, the rest foreigners. The foreign Reformed Churches were
invited to send at least three or four divines each, with the right to
vote.
James L of England sent Drs. George Carleton, Bishop of Llan-
daff (afterwards of Chichester) ; John Davenant, Bishop of Salisbury ;
Samuel Ward, Professor of Cambridge ; the celebrated Joseph Hall,
afterwards Bishop of Exeter and Norwich (who, however, had to leave
1 On Barnereldt, see the work of Motley ; on Hngo Grotins, the monograph of Luden,
Berlin, 1806.
* In Dutch, Dordrecht or Dordtrecht ; in Latin, "Dordracum—an old fortified town in which
the independence of the United Provinces was declared in 1572.
§ 65. THE ARMINIAN CONTBOVEKSY, 1604-1619. 513
before the close, and was replaced by Thomas Goad), and Walter Bal-
canquall, a Scotchman, and chaplain of the King. The Palatinate
was represented by Drs. Abraham Scultetus, Henry Alting, Professors
at Heidelberg, and Paulus Tossanus ; Hesse, by Drs. George Cruciger,
Paul Stein, Daniel Angelocrator, and Kudolpli Goclenius ; Switzerland,
by Dr. John Jacob Breitinger, Autistes of Zurich, Sebastian Beck and
Wolfgang Meyer of Basle, Marcus Rutimeyer of Berne, John Conrad
Koch of Schaffhausen, John Deodatus and Theodor Tronchiu of Geneva;
Bremen, by Matthias Martinius, Henry Isselbnrg, and Ludwig Crocius.
The Elector of Brandenburg chose delegates, but excused their absence
on account of age. The national Synod of France elected four dele-
gates— among them the celebrated theologians Chainier and Du Moulin
— but the King forbade them to leave the country. Bang James in-
structed the English delegates to 4 mitigate the heat on both sides/ and
to advise the Dutch ministers 'not to deliver in the pulpit to the peo-
ple those things for ordinary doctrines which are the highest points of
schools and not fit for vulgar capacity, but disputable on both sides.'
The Synod was opened and closed with great solemnity, and held
one hundred and fifty-four formal sessions, besides a larger number of
conferences.2 The expenses were borne by the States-General on a very
liberal scale, and exceeded 100,000 guilders,3 The sessions were public,
and crowded by spectators. John Bogerman, pastor at Leuwarden,
was elected President ; Festus Hommius, pastor in Leyden, first Sec-
retary— both strict Calvinists. The former had translated Beza's tract
on the punishment of heretics into Dutch ; the latter prepared a new
Latin version of the Belgic Confession. The whole Dutch delegation
was orthodox. Only three delegates from the provincial Synod of
Utrecht were Eemonstrants, but these had to yield their seats to the
three orthodox members elected by the minority in that province.
Gomarns represented supralapsarian Calvinism, but the great majority
were infralapsarians or sublapsarians.
Thus the fate of the Arminians was decided beforehand. Episcopius
and his friends — thirteen in all — were summoned before the Synod
simply as defendants, and protested against unconditional submission.
1 See the nine instructions of James to the delegates, in Fuller, Oh. If. of Brit. VoL V. p. 462.
a The Dutch delegates held twenty-two additional sessions on Church government.
3 The fire English delegates were allowed the largest sum, viz., ten pounds sterling per
4av — more than anv other foreign divines. — Fuller, L c. p. 465.
514 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Orthodox Calvinism achieved a complete triumph. The Five Ar-
ticles of the Remonstrance were unanimously rejected, and five Cal-
vinistic canons adopted, together with the Belgic Confession and the
Heidelberg Catechism. A thorough and most excellent revision of the
Dutch Bible from the Hebrew and Greek was also ordered, besides
other decisions which lie beyond our purpose.
The victory of orthodoxy was obscured by the succeeding deposition
of about two hundred Arminian clergymen, and by the preceding
though independent arrest of the political leaders of the Eemonstrants,
at the instigation of Maurice. Grotius was condemned by the States-
General to perpetual imprisonment, but escaped through the ingenuity
of his wife (1621). Van Olden Barneveldt was unjustly condemned
to death for alleged high -treason, and beheaded at the Hague (May
14, 1619). His sons took revenge in a fruitless attempt against the
life of Prince Maurice.
The canons of Dort were fully indorsed by the Reformed Church
in France, and made binding upon the ministers at the Twenty-third
National Synod at Alais, Oct. 1, 1620, and again at the Twenty-fourth
Synod at Charenton, Sept., 1623. In other Reformed Churches they
were received with respect, but not clothed with proper symbolical
authority. In England there arose considerable opposition.1 The only
Church outside of Holland where they are still recognized as a public
standard of doctrine is the Reformed Dutch Church in America.
The Synod of Dort is the only Synod of a quasi-oecumenical char-
acter in the history of the Reformed Churches. In this respect it is
even more important than the Westminster Assembly of Divines,
which was confined to England and Scotland, although it produced
superior doctrinal standards. The judgments of the Synod of Dort
differ according to the doctrinal stand-point. It was undoubtedly an
imposing assembly; and, for learning and piety, as respectable as any
ever held since the days of the Apostles. Breitinger, a great light of
the Swiss Churches, was astonished at the amount of knowledge and
talent displayed by the Dutch delegates, and says that if ever the Holy
Spirit were present in a Council, he was present at Dort. Scultetus, of
the Palatinate, thanked God that he was a member of that Synod, and
1 See Hardwick's History of the Thirty-nine Articles, ch. ix., and Heylin's Historia
yuarticulari$.
§ 65. THE ARMINIAN CONTBOVEESY, 1604-1619. 515
placed it high above similar assemblies. Meyer, a delegate of Basle,
whenever afterwards he spoke of this Synod, uncovered his head and
exclaimed £ Sacrosaneta Sy nodus!' Even Paolo Sarpi, the liberal
Catholic historian, in a letter to Heinsius, spoke very highly of it. A
century later, the celebrated Dutch divine, Campegius Vitringa, said :
' So much learning was never before assembled in one place, not even
at Trent.'1
On the other hand, the Kemonstrants, who had no fair hearing, ab-
horred the Synod of Dort on account of its Calvinism and intolerance.
The Lutherans were averse to it under the false impression that the
condemnation of Arminianism was aimed at their own creed. Some
secular historians denounce it as a Calvinistic tribunal of inquisition.2
The Canons of Dort have for Calvinism the same significance which
the Formula of Concord has for Lutheranism. Both betray a very high
order of theological ability and care. Both are consistent and neces-
sary developments. Both exerted a powerful conservative influence on
these Churches. Both prepared the way for a dry scholasticism which
runs into subtle abstractions, and resolves the living soul of divinity into
a skeleton of formulas and distinctions. Both consolidated orthodoxy
at the expense of freedom, sanctioned a narrow confessionalism, and
widened the breach between the two branches of the Reformation.
ARMTNTA^ISM AJTEB THE SYNOD OF DOBT.
The banishment of the Arminians was of short duration. After the
death of Prince Maurice of Nassau (1625), and under the reign of his
milder brother and successor, Frederick Henry, they were allowed to
return and to establish churches and schools in every town of Holland,
which became more and more a land of religious toleration and liberty.
In this respect their principles triumphed over their opponents.3 They
1 Schweizer,Vol. II. pp. 26, 143 sq.; also, Graf, and Bohl, L c.
8 Motley (Life and Death of John ofBarneveld, Vol. II. p. 309) caricatures the Synod of Dort
in a manner unworthy of an impartial historian. * It was settled,' he said, ' that one portion
of the Netherlands and of the rest of the human race had been expressly created^ the Deity
to be forever damned, and another portion to be eternally blessed. ... On the 30th April
and 1st May the Netherland Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism were declared infallible*
3 Hugo Grotius carried the principle of toleration so far that it was said Socinus, Luther,
Calvin, Arminius, the Pope, and Anus contended for his religion as seven cities for the birth
^f the divine Homer. See the verse of Menage, quoted by G. Frank, Geschichte der Protest.
TheologieS? 6L L p. 410.
516 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
founded a famous Theological College at Amsterdam (1630), which
exists to this day, and has recently been removed to Leyden.
Peace was not so favorable to their growth as controversy. They
gradually diminished in number, and are now a very small sect in
Holland, almost confined to Eotterdam and Amsterdam.
But their literary and religious influence has gone far beyond their
organization. Their eminent scholars, Hugo Grotius, Episeopius, Lim-
borch, Cureellseus, Olericus (Le Clerc), aud Wetstein, have enriched
exegetical and critical learning, and liberalized theological opinions,
especially on religious toleration and the salvation of unbaptized in-
fants. Arminianism, in some of its advocates, had a leaning towards
Socinianism, and prepared the way for nationalism, which prevailed to
a great extent in the Established Churches of Holland, Geneva, and
Germany from the end of the last century till the recent reaction in
favor of orthodox Calvinism and Lutheranisin. But many Arminians
adhered to the original position of a moderated semi-Pelagianism.
The distinctive Arminian doctrines of sin and grace, free-will and
predestination, have been extensively adopted in the Episcopal Church
since the reign of Charles L, and in the last century by the Methodists
of Great Britain and America, and thereby have attained a larger
territory and influence than they ever had in the land of their birth.1
Methodism holds to the essential doctrines of the Reformation, but also
to the five points of Arminianism, with some important evangelical
modifications.
§ 66. THE REMONSTRANCE.
The Arminian or quinquarticular controversy started with opposition
to the doctrine of absolute decrees, and moved in the sphere of an-
thropology and soteriology. The peculiar tenets are contained in the
five points or articles which the Arminians in their c Remonstrance3 laid
before the estates of Holland in 1610. They relate to predestination,
the extent of the atonement, the nature of faith, the resistibility of
grace, and the perseverance of saints.
The Remonstrance is first negative, and then positive. It rejects
1 The Wesleys were Anninians, while Whitefidd was a Calvinist. They separated on the
question of predestination*
§ 66. THE REMONSTRANCE,
five Calvinistic propositions, and then asserts the five Arminian propo-
sitions. The doctrines rejected are thus stated :
1. That God has, before the fall, and even before the creation of
man, by an unchangeable decree, foreordained some to eternal life and
others to eternal damnation, without any regard to righteousness or sin,
to obedience or disobedience, and simply because it so pleased him, in
order to show the glory of his righteousness to the one class and his
mercy to the other. (This is the supralapsarian view.)
2. That God, in view of the fall, and in just condemnation of our
first parents and their posterity, ordained to exempt a part of mankind
from the consequences of the fall, and to save them by his free grace,
but to leave the rest, without regard to age or moral condition, to their
condemnation, for the glory of his righteousness. (The sublapsarian
view.)
3. That Christ died, not for all men, but only for the elect
4. That the Holy Spirit works in the elect by irresistible grace, so
that they must be converted and be saved ; while the grace necessary
and sufficient for conversion, faith, and salvation is withheld from the
rest, although they are externally called and invited by the revealed
will of God.
5. That those who have received this irresistible grace can never
totally and finally lose it, but are guided and preserved by the same
grace to the end.
These doctrines, the Remonstrants declare, are not contained in the
Word of God nor in the Heidelberg Catechism, and are unedifying,
yea dangerous, and should not be preached to Christian people.
Then the Remonstrance sets forth the five positive articles as fol-
lows:
ARTICLE FIRST.
Conditional Predestination. — God has immutably decreed, from
eternity, to save those men who, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, be-
lieve in Jesus Christ, and by the same grace persevere in the obedience
of faith to the end ; and, on the other hand, to condemn the unbelievers
and unconverted (John iii. 36).
Election and condemnation are thus conditioned by foreknowledge,
and made dependent on the foreseen faith or unbelief of men.
518 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
SECOND ARTICLE.
Universal Atonement. — Christ, the Saviour of the world, died foi
all men and for every man, and his grace is extended to all. His
atoning sacrifice is in and of itself sufficient for the redemption of the
whole world, and is intended for all by God the Father. But its in-
herent sufficiency does not necessarily imply its actual efficiency. The
grace of God may be resisted, and only those who accept it by faith
are actually saved. He who is lost, is lost by his own guilt (John iii.
16; U6hniL2>
The Arminians agree with the orthodox in holding the doctrine of
a vicarious or expiatory atonement, in opposition to the Socinians; but
they soften it down, and represent its direct effect to be to enable God,
consistently with his justice and veracity, to enter into a new covenant
with men, under which pardon is conveyed to all men on condition of
repentance and faith. The immediate effect of Christ's death was not
the salvation, but only the salvability of sinners by the removal of the
legal obstacles, and opening the door for pardon and reconciliation.
They reject the doctrine of a limited atonement, which is connected
with the supralapsarian view of predestination, but is disowned by
moderate Calvinists, who differ from the Anninians in all other points.
Calvin himself says that Christ died sujfitient&r pro omnibus, ejficatiter
pro dectis.
THIED ARTICLE.
Saving Faith. — Man in his fallen state is unable to accomplish any
thing really and truly good, and therefore also unable to attain to
saving faith, unless he be regenerated and renewed by God in Christ
through the Holy Spirit (John xv. 5).
FOURTH ARTICLE.
J£e$istible Gfrace. — Grace is the beginning, continuation, and end of
our spiritual life, so that man can neither think nor do any good or
resist sin without prevening, co-operating, and assisting grace. But as
for the manner of co-operation, this grace is not irresistible, for many
lesist the Holy Ghost (Acts vii.).
§ 67. THE CANONS OF DORT. 51 £
ARTICLE.
The Uncertainty of Perseverance. — Although grace is sufficient and
abundant to preserve the faithful through all trials and temptations for
life everlasting, it has not yet been proved from the Scriptures that
grace, once given, can never be lost.
On this point the disciples of Arminius went further, and taught
the possibility of a total and final fall of believers from grace. They
appealed to such passages where believers are warned against this very
danger, and to such examples as Solomon and Judas. They moreover
denied, with the Roman Catholics, that any body can have a certainty
of salvation except by special revelation.
These five points the Remonstrants declare to be in harmony with
the Word of God, edifying and, as far as they go, sufficient for salva-
tion. They protest against the charge of changing the Christian Re-
formed religion, and claim toleration and legal protection for their
doctrine.
§ 67. THE CANONS OF DORT.
The Canons of Dort are likewise confined to five points or c Heads
of Doctrine,' and exhibit what is technically called the Calvinistic
system — first positively, then negatively, in the rejection of the Ar-
minian errors.1 Each Head of Doctrine (subdivided into Articles) is
subscribed by the Dutch and foreign delegates.
FERST TTBiA-n OF DOCTRINE.
Of Dimne Predestination. — Since all men sinned in Adam and
lie under the curse [according to the Augustinian system held by all
the Reformers], God would have done no injustice if he had left them
to their merited punishment; but in his infinite mercy he provided a
salvation through the gospel of Christ, that those who believe in him
may not perish, but have eternal life. That some receive the gift of
faith from God and others not, proceeds from God's eternal decree of
election and reprobation.
1 The term 'refectio errorum,' instead 01 uid condemnation and anathemas of the Greek
and Roman Churches in dealing with heresies, indicates that Protestant orthodoxy is more
liberal and charitable than the Catholic
VOL. L— L L
520 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Election is the unchangeable purpose of God whereby, before the
foundation of the world, he has, out of mere grace, according to the
sovereign good pleasure of his own will, chosen from the whole human
race, which has fallen through their own fault from their primitive
state of rectitude into sin and destruction, a certain number of per-
sons to redemption in Christ, whom he from eternity appointed the
Mediator and Head of the elect, and the foundation of salvation.
These elect, though neither better nor more deserving than others,
God has decreed to give to Christ to be saved by him, and bestow
upon them true faith, conversion, justification and sanctification, per-
severance to the end, and final glory (Eph. i. 4, 5, 6 ; Rom. viii. 30).
Election is absolute and unconditional. It is not founded upon fore-
seen faith and holiness, as the prerequisite condition on which it de-
pended ; on the contrary, it is the fountain of faith, holiness, and eter-
nal life itself. God has chosen us, not because we are holy, but to the
end that we should be holy (Eph. i. 4: ; Rom. ix. 11-13 ; Acts xiii. 38).
As God is unchangeable, so his election is unchangeable, and the elect
can neither be east away nor their number be diminished. The sense
and certainty of election is a constant stimulus to humility and grati-
tude.
The non-elect are simply left to the just condemnation of their own
sins. This is the decree of reprobation, which by no means makes
God the author of sin (the very thought of which is blasphemy), but
declares him to be an awful, irreprehensible, and righteous judge and
avenger (Cat. Ch. L Art. 15).
SEOOND HEAT) OF BOOTEINE.
Of the Death of Christ. [Limited Atonement.] — According to the
sovereign counsel of God, the saving efficacy of the atoning death of
Christ extends to all the elect [and to them only], so as to bring them
infallibly to salvation. But, intrinsically, the sacrifice and satisfaction
of Christ is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to ex-
piate the sins of the whole world. This death derives its infinite
value and dignity from these considerations ; because the person who
submitted to it was not only really man and perfectly holy, but also
the only-begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence
~vith the Father and Holy Spirit, which qualifications were necessary
§ 67. THE CANONS OP DORT. 521
to constitute him a Saviour for us ; and because it was attended with
a sense of the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin.
Moreover the promise of the gospel is, that whosoever believeth in
Christ crucified shall not perish, but have everlasting life. This prom-
ise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be
declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously
and without distinction, to whom God out of his good pleasure sends
the gospel.
And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor
believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief ; this is not owing to any de-
fect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross,
but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.1
THIRD AND FOURTH HEADS OF DOCTRINE.
Of the Corruption of Man, his Conversion to God, and the Manner
thereof. — Man was originally formed after the image of God. His
understanding was adorned with a true and saving knowledge of his
Creator, and of spiritual things ; his heart and will were upright, all
his affections pure, and the whole Man was holy ; but revolting from
God by the instigation of the devil, and abusing the freedom of his
own will, he forfeited these excellent gifts, and on the contrary en-
1 The advocates of a limited atonement reason from the effect to the cause, and make the
divine intention co-extensive with the actual application ; but they can give no satisfactory
explanation of such passages as John in. 16 (' God so loved the world,' which never means
the elect only, hut all mankind); 1 John ii. 2 (* Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and
not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world1) ; 1 Tim. ii. 4 ; 2 Pet. iii. 9. All
admit, however, with the Articles of Dort, that the intrinsic value of the atonement, being
the act of the God-man, is infinite and sufficient to cover the sins of all men. Dr. W. Cun-
ningham says : * The value or worth of Christ's sacrifice of himself depends upon, and is
measured by, the dignity of his person, and is therefore infinite. Though many fewer of the
human race had been to be pardoned and saved, an atonement of infinite value wonld have
been necessary, in order to procure for them these blessings ; and though many more, yea,
all men, had been to be pardoned and saved, the death of Christ, being an atonement of in-
finite value, would have been amply sufficient, as the ground or basis of their forgiveness or
salvation' (Historical Theol. Vol. H. p. 331). Similarly, Dr. Hodge, Yol. II. pp. 544 sqq.
After such admissions the difference of the two theories is of little practical account. Full
logical consistency would require us to measure the value of Christ's atonement by the ex-
tent of its actual benefit or availability, and either to expand or to contract it according to
the number of the elect ; but such an opinion is derogatory to the dignity of Christ, and is
held by very few extreme Calvinists of little or no influence. Cunningham says (p. 331) :
'There is no doubt that all the most eminent Calvinistic divines hold the infinite worth or
ralue of Christ's atonement — its full sufficiency for expiating all the sins of all men.'
522 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
tailed on himself blindness of mind, horrible darkness, vanity, and per-
verseness of judgment ; became wicked, rebellious, and obdurate in
heart and will, and impure in [all] his affections.
Man after the fall begat children in his own likeness. A corrupt
stock produced a corrupt offspring. Hence all the posterity of Adam,
Christ only excepted, have derived corruption from their original pa-
rent, not by imitation, as the Pelagians of old asserted, but by the prop-
agation of a vicious nature in consequence of a just judgment of God.
Therefore all men are conceived in sin, and are by nature children
of wrath, incapable of any saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and
in bondage thereto ; and, without the regenerating grace of the Holy
Spirit, they are neither able nor willing to return to God, to reform
the depravity of their nature, nor to dispose themselves to reformation.
What, therefore, neither the light of nature nor the law could do,
that God performs by the operation of his Holy Spirit through the
word or ministry of reconciliation : which is the glad tidings concern-
ing the Messiah, by means whereof it hath pleased God to save such
as believe, as well under the Old as under the New Testament.
As many as are called by the gospel are unfeignedly called; for
God hath most earnestly and truly declared in his Word what will be
acceptable to him, namely, that all who are called should comply with
the invitation. He, moreover, seriously promises eternal life and rest
to as many as shall come to him, and believe on him.
It is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ offered therein, nor
of God, who calls men by the gospel, and confers upon them various
gifts, that those who are called by the ministry of the Word refuse to
come and be converted. The fault lies in themselves.
But that others who are called by the gospel obey the call must be
wholly ascribed to God, who, as he hath chosen his own from eternity
in Christ, so he calls them effectually in time, confers upon them faith
and repentance, rescues them from the power of darkness, and trans-
lates them into the kingdom of his own Son, that they may show forth
the praises of him who hath called them out of darkness into his mar-
velous light ; and may glory not in themselves but in the Lord, accord-
ing to the testimony of the Apostles in various places.
Faith is therefore the gift of God, not on account of its being offer-
ed by God to man, to be accepted or rejected at his pleasure, but be-
§ el TH& CANONS OF fiom*. 523
cause it is in reality conferred, breathed, and infused into him ; nor
even oecause God bestows the power or ability to believe, and then ex-
pects that man should, by the exercise of his own free will, consent to
the terms of salvation, and actually believe in Christ; but because he
who works in man both to will and to do, and indeed all things in all,
produces both the will to believe and the act of believing also.
FIFTH HEAD OF DOCTRINE.
Of the Perseverance of the Saints. — Whom God calls, according to
his purpose, to the communion of his Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and
regenerates by the Holy Spirit, he delivers also from the dominion and
slavery of sin in this life ; though not altogether from the body of sin and
from the infirmities of the flesh, so long as they continue in this world.
By reason of these remains of indwelling sin, and the temptations
of sin and of the world, those who are converted could not persevere
in a state of grace if left to their own strength. But God is faithful,
who having conferred grace, mercifully confirms and powerfully pre-
serves them therein, even to the end.
Of this preservation of the elect to salvation, and of their persever-
ance in the faith, true believers for themselves may and do obtain
assurance according to the measure of their faith, whereby they arrive
at the certain persuasion that they ever will continue true and living
members of the Church ; and that they experience forgiveness of sins,
and will at last inherit eternal life.
This certainty of perseverance, however, is so far from exciting in
believers a spirit of pride, or of rendering them carnally secure, that,
on the contrary, it is the real source of humility, filial reverence, true
piety, patience in every tribulation, fervent prayers, constancy in suf-
fering and in confessing the truth, and of solid rejoicing in God ; so
that the consideration of this benefit should serve as an incentive to
the serious and constant practice of gratitude and good works, as ap-
pears from the testimonies of Scripture and the examples of the saints.
In opposition to the Canons of Dort, Episcopius prepared a lengthy
defense of the Anninian Articles and a confession of faith in Dutch,
1621, and in Latin, 1622. It claims no binding symbolical authority,
and advocates liberty and toleration.1
1 A German translation in BockeFs Bekenntniss-Sckriften, pp. 545-640.
534 THE CEEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
HI THE REFORMED CONFESSIONS OF GERMA1STT.
§ 68. THE TETBAPOLITAN CONFESSION. A.D. 1530.
Literature,
L EDITIONS OF THE CONFESSIO TETSAFOLITANA.
The Latin text was first printed at Strasbnrg (Argentorati), A.D. 1531, Sept (21 leaves); then in thfi
Corpus et Syntagma (1612 and 1654) • in ATTGUSTI'S Corpus libr. symb. (1827), pp. 32T sqq. ; and in NUB.
MKYBtfs Collect. Confess. (1840), pp. T4Q-770 ; comp. Proleg. p. taxiii.
The German text appeared first at Strasburg, Aug. 1551 (together with the Apology, 72 leaves) ; then
again 1579, ed. by John Storm, but suppressed by the magistrate, 1580 ; at Zweibrucken, 1604 ; in Beck's
Symbol. E&cTier, VoL L pp. 401 sqq. ; in B«OJEBLTS Bekenntntes-Schrtften, pp. 363 sqq.
II. HXSTOBT.
GOTTL. WEBNBDOBFF : Historfa Confessionis Tetrapolitance. Wittenb. 1694, ed. iv. 1721.
J. H. PELS: Dissert tie varia Confess. Tetrapolitancefortunaprcesertim in amtaieLindavtensi. Gotting.
1755.
PLAJSOK : Oeschichte <fea Protest. Ltfwrlxgriff*, VoL HL Part L (second ed. 1796), pp. 68-94.
J. W. ROHKIOH : Geschtehte der evangel. EircTie ties Elsasses. Strassbnrg, 1855, 3 vols.
J. W. BAUM : Capita und Butzer (Elberfl I860), pp. 466 sqq. and 595.
H. MALLET, in Herzog's Encykl Vol. XV. pp. 574r-576.
Comp. also the literature on the Augsburg Diet and the Augsburg Confession, especially Salig and
Forstemann, quoted in § 41, p. 225.
THE PREFORMED CHTJUCH ITST GEKMA3ST.
The mighty genius of Luther, aided by the learning of Melanch-
thon, controlled the German Reformation at first to the exclusion of
every other influence ; and if Lutheranism had not assumed a hostile
and uncompromising attitude towards Zwinglianism} Calvinism, and
the later theology of Melanehthon, it would probably have prevailed
throughout the German empire, as the Eeformed creed prevailed in
aU the Protestant cantons of Switzerland. But the bitter eucharistic
controversies and the triumph of rigid Lutheranism in the Formula
of Concord over Melanchthonianism drove some of the fairest por-
tions of Germany, especially the Palatinate and Brandenburg, into
the Eeformed communion.
The German branch of the Eeformed family grew up under the
combined influences of Zwingli, Calvin, and Melanchthon. Zwingli's
reformation extended to the southern portions of Germany bordering
on Switzerland, especially the free imperial cities of Strasburg, Con-
stance, Lindau, Memmingen, and Ulm. It is stated that the majority
of the Protestant citizens of Augsburg during the Diet of 1530 sym-
pathized with him rather than ^ith Luther. Calvin spent nearly three
years at Strasburg (1538-41), and exerted a great influence on scholars
§ 68. THE TETRAPOLITAN CONFESSION, 1530. 525
through his writings. Melanchthon (who was a native of the Palatinate),
in his later period, emancipated himself gradually from the authority of
Luther, and sympathized with Calvin in the sacramental question, while
in the doctrines of divine sovereignty and human freedom he pursued
an independent course. He trained the principal author of the Heidel-
berg Catechism (Ursinus), reorganized the University of Heidelberg
(1557), which became the Wittenberg of the Reformed Church in Ger-
many, and threw on several occasions the weight of his influence against
the exclusive type of Lntheranism advocated by such men as Flacius,
Heshusius, and Westphal. He impressed upon the German Eeformed
Church his mild, conciliatory spirit and tendency towards union, which,
at a later period, prevailed also in a large part of the Lutheran Church.
The German Eeformed Church, then, occupies a mediating position
between Calvinism and Lutheranism. It adopts substantially the Cal-
vinistic creed, but without the doctrine of reprobation (which is left
to private opinion), and without its strict discipline; while it shares
with the Lutheran Church the German language, nationality, hymnol-
ogy, and mystic type of piety.1 The great majority of German Ee-
formed congregations have, since 1817, tinder the lead of the royal
house of Prussia, been absorbed in what is called the Evangelical
or United Evangelical Church. The aim of this union was originally
to substitute one Church for two, but the result has been to add a
third Church to the Lutheran and Eeformed, since these still continue
their separate existence in Germany and among the German emigrants
in other countries.8
BUCER.
Among the framers of the character of the Eeformed Church in
Germany, Martin Bucer (Butzer),3 Wolfgang Fabricius Capito, and Cas-
1 Dr. Heppe, in his numerous and learned works on the history and theology of the Ger-
man Reformation period, endeavors to identify the German Reformed Church with Melanch-
thonianism (which was only an element in it), and Melanchthonianism with original German
Protestantism (which was prevailingly Lutheran in the strict sense of the term), thus over-
estimating the influence of Melanchthon and underrating the influence of Zwingli and Calvin.
His books are very valuable, but one-sided, and must be supplemented by the writings of
Alex. Schweizer (Die Centraldogmen) and others on the same subject.
* The large German Protestant population of the United States is divided among Lutherans
(the most numerous), German Reformed, and Evangelicals (or Unionists), A considerable
number is connected with English denominations, especially the Methodists and Presbyterians.
3 He wrote his name in German Butzer (i. e., Cleanser, from jwtzen, to cleanse), in Latin
Eucerus, in Greek BovKtjpW* See Baum, L c. p. 88.
526 THE CBEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
par Hedio occupy the next place after Zwingli, Calvin, and Melanch-
then. Bucer (1491-1511), the learned and devoted reformer of Stras-
biirg, and a facile diplomatist, was a personal friend of Zwingli, Lu-
ther, and Calvin, and a mediator between the Swiss and the German
Reformation, as also between Continental and Anglican Protestantism.
He labored with indefatigable zeal for an evangelical union, and
hoped to attain it by elastic compromise formulas (like the Wittenberg
Concordia of 1536), which concealed the real difference, and in the end
satisfied neither party. He drew up with Melanchthon tiie plan of a
reformation in Cologne at the request of the archbishop. During the
Interim troubles he accepted a call to England, aided Cranmer in his
reforms, and died as Professor of Theology at Cambridge, universally
lamented. In the reign of Bloody Mary he was formally condemned
as a heretic, his bones were dug up and publicly burned (Feb. 6, 1556) ;
but Elizabeth solemnly restored the 'blessed' memory of 'the dear
martyrs Martin Bucer and Paul Pagius.3 In attainments and fertility
as a writer he was not surpassed in his age.1
THE CONFESSION OF THE FOUB CITIES,
The oldest Confession of the Eeformed Church in Germany is the
TETEAPOLTTAN CONFESSION, also called the STKASBUEG and the SWABTAN
CONFESSION.2
It was prepared in great haste, during the sessions of the Diet o£
Augsburg in 1530, by Bucer, with the aid of Capito and Hedio, in the
1 See a chronological list of his very numerous printed works in Baum, pp. 586 sqq. Baum
says : * An Fruchtbarkeit kommt ihm [Bucer] kaum Luther gleich^ trotz d&trt dass er bei wei-
tem mekr als Lather, ja in seiner letzten Lebensperiode beinahe bestandig, auf Reisen, Con-
venten, R&chstagen vnd Colloquien, in befreundeten Stadten und Orten als Organisator der
Kirchenreformation abwesend und in Anspruch genommen war. Mit einer beispiellosen Elas-
tititdt des Geistes angethan, mit cinem fieberhaftigen Thatigkeitstriebe behaftet^ schrieb er,
vermoge des ungemeinen Reich t hums seiner Kenntnisse mit solcker falelhaften Iteichtigkeit und
Unleserlichkeit, dass nicht affein zu dem Meisten was von Anderen gelesen werden sollte, ein
mit seiner die Worte bios andeutenden Schrift genau vertrauter Amanuensis nothwendig war,
sondern dass er auch neben seinen Amtsgeschaften noch bei weitem mehr /Srderte, als zwei der
geubtesten Schreiber in's Reine bringen konnten. Er hat vmfangreiche Sucker auf seinen
Reisen geschrieben.* His best amanuensis, Conrad Huber, began a complete edition of his
works, of which the first volume only appeared at Basle, 1577 (959 pages, folio). It is called
Tomus Anglicanus, because it contains mostly the books which Bucer wrote in England.
Many of his MSS. are preserved in Strasburg and in England.
1 Confessio Tetrapolitana, C. Quatuor Cimtatwn^ C. Argentinensis (Argentoratt), C. Sue-
rtco, die Confession der vier Stadte, das Vierstadte-Bekenntniss.
§ 68. THE TETBAPOLITAN CONFESSION, 1530. 527
name of the four imperial cities (hence the name) of Strasburg, Con-
stance, Memraingen, and Lindau which, on account of their sympathy
with Zwinglian ism, were excluded by the Lutherans from their political
and theological conferences, and from the Protestant League. They
would greatly have preferred to unite with the Lutherans in a com-
mon confession; but at that time even Melanchthon was more anx-
ious to conciliate the Papists than the Zwinglians and Anabaptists;
and of the Lutheran princes the Landgrave Philip of Hesse was the
only one who, from a broad, statesman-like view of the critical situa-
tion, favored a solid union of the Protestants against the common foe,
but in vain. Hence after the Lutherans had presented their Confes-
sion, June 25, and Zwingli his own, July 8, the Four Cities handed
theirs, July 11, to the Emperor, in German and Latin. It was not
read before the Diet, but a Confutation full of misrepresentations was
prepared by Faber and Cochlaus, and read October 24 (or 17). The
Strasburg divines were not even favored with a copy of this Confuta-
tion, but procured one secretly, and answered it by a ' Vindication and
Defense3 (as Melanchthon wrote his Apology of the Augsburg Con-
fession during the Diet). The Confession and Apology, after being
withheld for a year from print for the sake of peace, were officially
published in both languages at Strasburg in the antumn of 1531.1
The Tetrapolitan Confession consists of twenty-three chapters, be-
sides Preface and Conclusion. It is in doctrine and arrangement
closely conformed to the Lutheran Confession of Augsbnrg, and
breathes the same spirit of moderation. The Reformed element, how-
ever, appears in the first chapter (On the Matter of Preaching), in the
1 Under the title, ' Bef anbtnnfj ber fcter grety unb 9fcei$p5tt, ©trapurg, (Sonpanfe,
mingen unb Stubato, in beren fte fetyf*2ftaiefiat, uff bent 8tet$8tag gu 2fog8jmrg hn $rr. 3for
ge$atten, treS glaubenS unb fftr^aBenS, ber Religion fcalfc, re$enf$aft gefyort $aben. — @i$rift*
li<$e SBef($irmung iinb bertfyebtgung berfetbtgen SBefanbtnufj, gegen ber Sonfutatton unb SBtber*
legmtg, fo ben gefanbten ber toter ©tatten, uff bemetbtem 0tei$«tage, offentli$ fiirgelefen, unb $te
getretoK^ ehtgeBra^t iff At the end, ' ©etrudft gu ^trapnrg burd(> 3o£ann @$toera$er, uff
ben grit. 3htgu]tt, MDXXXI/ Shortly after the appearance of the German original there
appeared a Latin translation, which, however, did not contain the Apology. The title is as
follows : * Confessio Religionis Christiana Sacratissimo Imperatori Carolo V. Avgvsto, in
Comitiis Augustams Anno MDXXX. per legates Civitatum Argentor^ti^ Constantly M&n-
mmffCB, et Lindavice exhibita. Si quis voluerit voluntati ejtts obtemperare, is cognoscet de doc-
trina utrum ex Deo sit an ego a me ipso loquar Joh. VII? At the end, * Argentorati Georgia
Ubichero Andfano Impressore Anno MDXXXL, mense Septemb.' — These titles are copied
from Banm, 1. c. p. 5f>5. Comp. Niemeyer, Proleg. pp. Ixxxiv. sq. A new German translation
from the Latin is given in Walch's edition of Luther's Works, Vol. XX pp. 1966-2008.
528 THE CREEDS OF CHBISTE3SDOM.
declaration that nothing should be taught in the pulpit but what was
either expressly contained in the Holy Scriptures or fairly deduced
therefrom.1 (The Lutheran Confession, probably from prudential and
irenical considerations, is silent on the supreme authority of the Script-
ures.) The evangelical doctrine of justification is stated in the third
and fourth chapters more clearly than by Melanchthon, namely, that
we are justified not by works of our own, but solely by the grace
of God and the merits of Christ through a living faith, which is act-
ive in love and productive of good works. Images are rejected in
Ch. XXII. The doctrine of the Lord's Supper (Ch. XVHI.) is couched
in dubious language, which was intended to comprehend in substance
the Lutheran and the Zwinglian theories, and contains the germ of
the view afterwards more clearly and fully developed by Calvin. In
this ordinance, it is said, Christ offers to his followers, as truly now
as at the institution, his very body and blood as spiritual food and
drink, whereby their souls are nourished to everlasting life.2 Nothing
1 * Mandavimus MS, qui concionandi apud nos munerefungebantur, ut nihil aliud quam quce
sacris literis aut continentur, out certe nituntur9 e suggestu docerent. Videbatur namque nobis
baud indignttm, eo in illo tanto discrimine confugere, quo confugerunt olim et semper, non solum
sanctissimi Patres, ISpiscopi, et Prineipes, sed qwlibet etiam privati, nempe ad authoritatem
Scriptures arcan<e. Ad quam nobiUores Thessalonicensium auditum Christi Evangelium ex-
plorasse, dims Lucas cum laude illorum memorat, in qua Paul-its summo studio versari suum
Timotheum voluit, sine cuius authoritate, nulK Pontifices suis decretis obedientiam, nullipatres
sttis scriptis fidem^ nulli denique Prineipes suis legibus authoritatem unquam postularunt, ex
qua demum ducendas sacras condones, et magnum Sacri Imperil concilium Nuremberffce, anno
Christi M.D. XXIII. celebratum sancivit. Si enim verum divus Paulus testatus est, per
divinam Scripturam hominem Dei penitus absoloi, cttque ad omne opus bonum instrui, nihil po-
tent is veritatis Christianas, nihil doctrines salutaris desiderare, Scripturam qui consulere re-
ligiose studeaC
8 'De hoc venerando corporis et sangumis Christi sacramento omniat qua de iUo JEvange-
listce, Paulus et sancti Patres scripta reRquerunt, nostri fide optima docent, commendant,
vnculcant. Indeque singulari studio hanc Christi in suos bonitatem, semper depredicant, qua
is non minus hodie, quam in novissima ilia coena, omnibus qui inter iflius discipulos ex animo
nomen dederunt9 cum hanc ccenam, ut ipse instituit repetunt, verum suum corpus, verumque
suum sanffttinem, vere edendum et bibendum, in cibum potumque animarum, quo illce in ceter-
nam vitam alantw, dare per sacr amenta dignatw^ utjam ipse in illis9 et itti in ipso vivant et
permaneant, in die novissimo, in novam et immortalem vitam per ipsum resuscitandi,juxta sua
ilia cetemce veritatis verba: "Accipite et manducate, hoc est corpus meum" etc. "Bibite ex eo
omnes, hie calix est sanguis meus" etc. Prcecipua vero diKgentia populi animos, nostri ecck-
siastCB ab omni turn contentione, turn svpervacanea et curiosa disquisitione, ad iUud revocant,
quod solum prodest, sofamque a Christo servatore nostro spectatum est, nempe ut ipso pasti, in
ipso et per ipsum vivamus, vitam Deo placitam, sanctam, et ideo perennem quoque et beatam,
simusque inter nos omnes unus pants, unum corpus, qui de unopane in sacra coena participamus.
Quo sane factum est, ut divina sacramenta, sacrosancta Christi coma, quam religiosissime,
"everentiaque nngulari apud nos et admimstrentur^ et sumanturS Ebrard (Kircfan- un4
§ 69. THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM. ir>(& 529
is said of the oral manducation and the fruition of unbelievers, which
are the distinctive features of the Lutheran view. Bueer, who had
attended the Conference at Marburg in 1529, labored with great zeal
afterwards to bring about a doctrinal compromise between the con*
tending theories, but without effect.
We may regard the Strasburg Confession as the first attempt at an
evangelical union symbol. But Sneer's love for union was an obstacle
to the success of his confession, which never took deep root ; for in
the Keformed Churches it was soon superseded by the clearer and more
logical confessions of the Calvinistic type, and the four cities after-
wards signed the Lutheran Confession to join the Smalcald League.
Bucer himself remained true to his creed, and reconfessed it in his last
will and testament (1548), and on his death-bed.1
§ 69. THE HEIDELBEEG CATECHISM. A.D. 1563.
Literature,
L STANI>ABJ> EDITIONS OP THB CATECHISM.
Official German editions of 1663 (three), 1585, 1595, 1684, 1T24, 1863 (American). The original title is
• CATBCHISMTTS | Ober f <£$rip&er ttitberrid&t, f toteber in tftrc&en imb @$a* | len fcer <£$nrffafilt$m |
$falfc getriebra | twrbt | QJebrutft in ber <£$urfurp* | $en ©tab frtbeBerg, to* I 3WJ«»ai 3RW- i
1563.' With the Electoral arms. 95 pages.
There is but one copy of the first edition known to exist, and this did not come into public notice till
1864. It belonged to Pro£ Hermann Wilken, of Heidelberg, whose name it bears, with the date 1563; VMM
bought by Dr. Treviranus, of Bremen, in 1823, given by him to Dr. Menken, bought back after Menken's
death, 1832, and is now in the University Library at Utrecht. I examined it in October and Novem-
ber, 1865, at Bremen. It has the remark, ' Diesses iet die aUererste Edition, in wdcter Pag. 55 die 80*te
frag und Antwort nicM gtfunden wirdL Auff Churfurstlichen Btfehl eingezoffen. Liber rarissimwt.'
The Scriptnre texts are quoted in the margin, but only the chapters, since the vehicular division (which
first appeared in Stephens's Greek Testament of 1551) had not yet come into general use. A quasi fee-
simile of this copy was issued by the Rev. ALBEBOHT Wounras, then at Bonn (now at Halle), under the
title, 'Der HeiMberg&r Katechtemtu in seiner wrgprunglichm Gestalt, herausgegeben nebst der GeschichU
^nesT&cteaimJrfirel&S: Bonn, 1864. Comp. his art. in the Stodien und Eritiken for 186T, pp. 1, 2.
NIEMEYEB, in his collection of Beformed Confessions, pp. 390 sqq., gives, besides the Latin text, a
faithful reprint of the third German edition, with the eightieth question in full.
PHIUPP SOHAPF : Der HeMetoerger KatecUsmxt*. Nach der ersten Ausgabe von 1563 reoidirt tmd rn.it
kritiscten, Anmerlcungen, «noie etoer Getchtekte vnd Charakteristik des JCotecA&mtw uflr«eAen. Philadel-
phia (J Kohler), 1863 ; second edition, revised and enlarged, 1866. This edition was prepared for the
tercentenary celebration of the Heidelberg Catechism, and gives the received text of the third edition
with the readings of the first and second editions, and the Scripture proois in full.
The Latin translation was published in 1563, and again in 1566, under the title, * OATHS- | OHESIS BJGUKJIO- j
NTS CHRISTIAN*, | q*m traditor in Ecclesiis \ et Scholis Pal*- \ tinatus. \ Heydelbergce. \ Ea^m anna post
Christen \ notam Jf.JD.i2TFI.f I saw a copy of this *L Latin* in the library of the late Dr.Treviranus,
Ihgmengeschichte^l. in. p. 93) says of Bucer, that he had the theological elements for a
true doctrinal union of the Lutheran and Reformed views of the eucharist. * In der richtigen
exegetischen Grundlage vSllig mt Zwingli dmg, brackte er das Element, welches auch in
Zwingli keimartig vorhanden gewesen, aber in der Hitze des Streites ganz zurucfyetreten
war— die Lelensgemeinschaft oder unio mystica mit der PERSON Christi—im Sinneder Te-
trapolitana (d. *. im Sinne der nachherigen calvinisch-melanchthonischen Lehre) zur Entwick-
lung*
1Baum,pp.569>572.
530 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
in Bremen (1865). On the title-page the words are written, 'Bditio rara et originalis? also the name
of G. Menken, the former owner. The Scripture references are marked on the margin, including the
verses. The eightieth question is complete (with 'execranda idololatriar), pp. 62 and 63, and supported
by many Scripture texts and the Can. Missce. The questions are divided into fifty-two Sundays. lPre-
cattones aliquot privates et publicce,' a 'Precatio scholastica,' and some versified prayers of Joachim
Camerarius (the friend and biographer of Melanchthon), are added.
The best English, or rather American, edition of the Catechism is the stately triglot tercentenary
edition prepared at the direction of the German Reformed Church in the United States, by a committee
consisting of B. V. Gerhart, D.D., John W. Nevin, D.D., Henry Harbaugh, D.D., John S. Kessler, D.D.,
Daniel Zacharias, D.D., and three laymen, and issued under the title, * The Heidelberg Catechism, in Ger-
man, Latin, and English; uoith an Historical Introduction (by Dr. Nevin), New York (Charles Scribner),
1863.' 4to. The German text is a reprint of the third edition after Niemeyer, with the German in mod-
ern spelling added ; the English translation is made directly from the German original, and is far better
than the one in popular use, which was made from the Latin. It is the most elegant and complete
edition of the Catechism ever published, but it appeared before the discovery of the eAitio princeps, and
repeats the error concerning the eightieth question (see Introd. p. 38).
TT. COMMENTABIES.
The commentaries and sermons on the Heidelberg Catechism are exceedingly numerous, especially
in the German and Dntch languages. The first and most valuable is from the chief author, ZAOH. UBSI-
HTTBI Corpus Doctrines orthodox*, or Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, ed. by his pupil, DAVID
PABEUS, and repeatedly published at Heidelberg and elsewhere— 1591, 161S, etc.— in Latin, German, Dutch,
and English. An American edition, on the basis of the Euglkh translation of Bishop Dr. H. PABBY, was
issued by Dr. WILLIABD (President of Heidelberg College, Tifiln, <X), Columbus, 0. 1850. Other standard
commentaries are by COOOEJTTB (16T1), D'OCTBEIN (1719), L*MPE (1721), STAHELIN (1724), and VAN ALFZS
(1800). See a fuller list by Harbaugh in 'Mercersb. Rev.7 for 1860, pp. 601-625, and in Bethune's Lectures.
Of more recent works we name—
KAKLSUDUOFF: TheologiachesHandbuch zur Ausleyung des Heidelberger Catechismus. Francf. a. M. 1862.
GE0.W.BBrmiNE (D.D.,and minister of the Ref. Dutch Ch.,N.Y. ; d.1862): Expository Lectures on the
Heidelb. Catech. N. York, 1864, 2 vols., with an alphabet, list of works by VAN NEST at close of Vol. IL
HKBHANN DAX,TON (Ger. Ref. minister at St. Petersb.) : Immanuel. Der Heidelberger Katechismus als Be-
J&nntniss- und Erbauungsbueh der evangel Kirche erkldrt und an's Herz getegt. Wiesbaden, 1870 (pp. 539).
HI. HISTORICAL WOBKS ON THE CATECHISM.
H. ALTING (Prof, of Theology at Heidelberg and Groningen, d. 1644) : Historia Ecclesice Palatines.
Prankt a. M. 1701.
B. G. STBUVE: lytilzische Kirchenhistorie. Frankf. 1721, Ch. V. sqq.
J}. L. WUNDT : Grundrisa der pfdlzischen Kirchengeschichte bis zum JaJir 1742. Heidelb. 1798.
JAQVES LKNFANT: Uinnocence. du Catfahisme de Heidelberg. Heidelb. 1688 (1723).
J. CHB. KOOHEB: Katechetische Oeschichte der Reformirten Kirche, sonderlich der ScJiicksale des Heidd-
forger Katechismi. Jena, 1T56, pp. 23T-444.
G. J. PI^NCK : Geschichte derprotestantischen Theologie von Luther's Tode, etc. Vol. n. Part IL pp. 475*491.
(This is Vol. V. of his great work on the Geschichte der Entetehung, etc., utis&res protestanf. Lehrbegr*ffs.)
HEINB. SIMON TAN ALPEN : G&tchichte u. Literatur des Heidelb. Katechismus. Frankf. a. M. 1SOO. Vol.
UL Part II. (The first two volumes and the first part of the third volume of this catechetical work con-
tain explanations and observations on the Catechism, which are, however, semi-rationalistic.)
Jon. CUB. W. Aueusri: Versuch einer hist.-kritischen Einteitung in die beiden HauptrKatechismen (the
Luth. and Heidelb.) der evanyelischen Kirche. Elberfeld, 1824, pp. 96 sqq.
BXXNAOKXB: Article on the Heidelb. Catechism in Erach und Gruber, Allgem. EnvyUop. Sect II. Part
IV. pp. 386 sqq-
Lxnxwio HAUSSEB : Geschichte der Rhcm-Pfalz. Heidelb. 1845. Vol. n.
D. SEISXN : Geschichte der Reformation zu Heidelberg, von ihren ersten Anfangen bis zur Abfassung des
Seiddb. Katechismus. Sine Dtntechrift zur dreihundertjahrigen JubeJfeier daselbst am 3. Jan. 1846.
Heidelb. 1846.
Aue. KBBABD : Das Dogma vom heil A bendmahl und seine Geschichte. F. a. M. 1846. Vol. IL pp. 575 sqq.
K. FK, VIXBOBBT: Geschichte der Reformation im Grossherzogthum Baden. Nach grossentheils hand-
tchiifflichen QueUen. Karlsruhe, 1847.
JOHN W. NBVIN : History and Genius of the Heidelberg Catechism. Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, 1847.
(The best work on the Catechism in English.) Comp. Dr. KEVIN'S able Introduction to the triglot ter-
centenary edition of the H. C. New York, 1863, pp. 11-127.
KASL SDDHOFF: C. Olemanus und Z. Urainus. Leben und ausgewdhlte Schriften. Elberfeld, 1857.
G. D. J. SOHOTEL: History of the Origin, Introducttori, and Fortunes of the Heidelberg Catechism (in
Dutch> Amsterdam, 1863.
Several valuable essays on the Heidelberg Catechism, by Purr, SACK, and TJW.MANN, in the SbudUn
und Kritiken for 1863, and by WOLTEBS and TBKOHSE&, ibid, for 1867.
TZBOENTENABY MONUMENT. In Commemoration of the Three Hundredth Anniversary of the Heidelberg
Catechism. Published by the German Reformed Church of the United States of North America, in
§ 69. 1THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM, 1561 " 53J
English and German. The German ed. by Dr. SOHAFF, with an historical introdnction. Chambereburg
and Philadelphia, Pa. 1863. Thib work contains about twenty essays, by European and American theo-
logians, on the history and theology of the Heidelberg Catechism.
J. I. BUSDES (Prof, at Utrecht): De Heidelbergtscke Catechismus m zijne terste Levensjaren 1563-1567.
Historische en Biblioyrafische Xalezing met 26 Facsimile*. Utrecht, 1867 (pp. 164). Very valuable for the
early literary history of the H. C., with fac-similes of the first German, Latin, and Batch editions.
THE REFORMATION IN THE PALATINATE.
The Palatinate, one of the finest provinces of Germany, on both sides
of the upper Rhine, was one of the seven electorates (Kurfursten-
thumer\ wL^se rulers, in the name of the German people, elected the
Emperor of Germany. After the dissolution of the old empire (1806)
it ceased to be a politico-geographical name, and its territory is now
divided between Baden, Bavaria, Hesse Darmstadt, Nassau, and Prus-
sia. Its capital was Heidelberg (from 1231 till 1720), famous for its
charming situation at the foot of the Konigsstuhl, on the banks of
the Swabian river Neckar, for its picturesque castle, and for its uni-
versity (founded in 1346).
Luther made a short visit to Heidelberg in 1518, and defended cer-
tain evangelical theses. In 1546, the year of Luther's death, the Ref-
ormation was introduced under the Elector Frederick II. Melanch-
thon, who was a native of the Palatinate, and twice received a call to a
professorship of theology at Heidelberg (1546 and 1557), but declined,
acted as the chief counselor in the work, and aided, on a personal visit
in 1557, in reorganizing the university on an evangelical basis under
Otto Henry (1556-59). He may therefore be called the Reformer of
the Palatinate. He impressed upon it the character of a moderate
Lutheranism friendly to Calvinism. The Augsburg Confession was
adopted as the doctrinal basis, and the cultus was remodeled (as also
in the neighboring Duchy of Wiirtemberg) after Zwinglian simplicity.
Heidelberg now began to attract Protestant scholars from different
countries, and became a battle-ground of Lutheran, Philippist, Cal-
vinist, and Zwinglian views. The conflict was enkindled as usual by
the zeal for the real presence. Tilemann Heshusius, whom Melaneh-
thon, without knowing his true character, had recommended to a theo-
logical chair (1558), introduced, as General Superintendent, exclusive
Lutheranism, excommunicated Deacon Klebitz for holding the Zwin-
glian view, and even fought with him at the altar about the commu-
nion cup. This public scandal was the immediate occasion of the
Heidelberg Catechism.
532 THE CEEEDS OF CHBISTENDOM.
FREDERICK HI.
During this controversy FREDERICK III., surnamed the Pious (1515-
1576), became Elector of the Palatinate, 1559. He made it the chief
object of his reign to carry out the reformation begun by his prede-
cessors. He tried at first to conciliate the parties, and asked the advice
of Melanchthon, who, a few months before his death, counseled peace,
moderation, and Biblical simplicity, and warned against extreme and
scholastic subtleties in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper,1 He deposed
both Heshusius and Klebitz, arranged a public disputation (June, 1560)
on the eucharist, decided in favor of the Melanchthonian or Calvinistic
view, called distinguished foreign divines to the university, and in-
trusted two of them with the composition of the Heidelberg Catechism,
which was to secure harmony of teaching and to lay a solid founda-
tion for the religious instruction of the rising generation.
Frederick was one of the purest and noblest characters among the
princes of Germany. He was to the Palatinate what Bang Alfred and
Edward YL were to England, what the Electors Frederick the Wise
and John the Constant were to Saxony, and Duke Christopher to Wiir-
temberg. He did more for educational and charitable institutions than
all his predecessors. He devoted to them the entire proceeds of the
oppressed convents. He lived in great simplicity that he might con-
tribute liberally from his private income to the cause of learning and
religion. He was the first German prince who professed the Ee-
formed Creed, as distinct from the Lutheran. For this he suffered
much reproach, and was threatened with exclusion from the benefits
of the Augsburg Treaty of Peace (concluded in 1555), since Zwin-
glianism and Calvinism were not yet tolerated on German soil. But
at the Diet of Augsburg, in 1566, he made before the Emperor a
manly confession of his faith, and declared himself ready to lose his
crown rather than violate his conscience. Even his opponents could
not but admire his courage, and the Lutheran Elector Augustus of
Saxony applauded him, saying, * Fritz, thou art more pious than all of
1 Responsio Ph. Md. ad quastionem de controuersia Heidelbergensi (Nor. 1, 1559), in Corp.
Reform. VoL IX. pp. 960 sqq. It is the last public utterance of Melanchthon on the eu-
charistic question, and agrees substantially -with the doctrine of Calvin, as it was afterwards
expressed in the Heidelberg Catechism.
§ 69. THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM, 1563. 533
us.3 He praised God on his death-bed that he had been permitted to
see such a reformation in Church and school that men were led away
from human traditions to Christ and his divine Word. He left in
writing a full confession of his faith, which may be regarded as an
authentic explanation of the Heidelberg Catechism ; it was published
after his death by his son, John Casimir (1577).
TTRSINITS A2TO OLEVIAIHIS.
Frederick showed his wisdom by calling two young divines, TTrsinus
and Olevianus, to Heidelberg to aid in the Reformation and to prepare
an evangelical catechism. They belong to the reformers of the second
generation. Theirs it was to nurture and to mature rather than to
plant. Both were Germans, but well acquainted with the Reformed
Churches in Switzerland and France. Both suffered deposition and
exile for the Reformed faith.
ZACHABIAS UKSiNirs (Bis), the chief author of the Heidelberg Cate-
chism, was born at Breslau, July 18, 1534, and studied seven years (1550-
1557) at Wittenberg under Melanchthon, who esteemed him as one of
his best pupils and friends. He accompanied his teacher to the relig-
ious conference at Worms, 1557, and to Heidelberg, and then proceeded
on a literary journey to Switzerland and France. He made the person-
al acquaintance of Bullinger and Peter Martyr at Zurich, of Calvin and
Beza at Geneva, and was thoroughly initiated into the Reformed Creed.
Calvin presented him with his works, and wrote in them the best wishes
for his young friend. On his return to Wittenberg he received a call
to the rectorship of the Elizabeth College at Breslau. After the death
of Melanchthon he went a second time to Zurich (Oct., 1560), intending
to remain there. In the following year he was called to a theological
chair at Heidelberg. Here he labored with untiring zeal and success
till the death of Frederick IIL, 1576, when, together with six hundred
steadfast Reformed ministers and teachers, he was deposed and exiled
by Louis VL, who introduced the Lutheran Creed. Ursinus found a
refuge at Neustadt an der Hardt, and established there, with other
deposed professors, a flourishing theological school under the protec-
tion of John Oasimir, the second son of Frederick III. He died in
the prime of his life and usefulness, March 6, 1583, leaving a widow
and one son. In the same year Casimir succeeded his Lutheran brother
534: THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
in the Electorate, recalled the exiled preachers, and re-established the
Reformed Church in the Palatinate.
Ursinus was a man of profound classical, philosophical, and theo-
logical learning, poetic taste, rare gift of teaching, and fervent piety.
His devotion to Christ is beautifully reflected in the first question of
the Heidelberg Catechism, and in his saying that he would not take a
thousand worlds for the blessed assurance o£ being owned by Jesus
Christ. He was no orator, and no man of action, but a retired, mod-
est, and industrious student.1 His principal works, besides the Cate-
chism, are a Commentary on the Catechism (Corpus dootrince ortho-
doxce) and a defense of the Reformed Creed against the attacks of
the Lutheran Formula of Concord.
CASPAB OLEVIANTJS (OLEWIG), born at Treves Aug. 10, 1536, studied
the ancient languages at Paris, Bourges, and Orleans, and theology at
Geneva and Zurich. He enjoyed, like Ursinus, the personal instruc-
tion and friendship of the surviving reformers of Switzerland. He
began to preach the evangelical doctrines at Treves, was thrown into
prison, but soon released, and called to Heidelberg, 1560, by Frederick
III., who felt under personal obligation to him for saving one of his
sons from drowning at the risk of his own life. He taught theology
and preached at the court. He was the chief counselor of the Elect-
or in all affairs of the Church. In 1576 he was banished on account
of his faith, and accepted a call to Herborn, 1584, where he died, Feb.
27, 1585. His last word was a triumphant * certissimusj in reply to a
friend who asked him whether he were certain of his salvation. Theo-
dore Beza lamented his death in a Latin poem, beginning
quibus suspiriis,
Eheu, qtdbus te lacrymis
Oleviane, planxerof
Olevianns was inferior to Ursinus in learning, but his superior in the
pulpit and in church government. He wrote an important catechet-
ical work on the covenant of grace, and is regarded as the forerunner
of the federal theology of Coecejus and Lampe. He labored earnestly,
but only with moderate success, for the introduction of the Presbyte-
rian form of government and a strict discipline, after the model of
1 On the door of his study he inscribed the warning, * Amice, quisquis hue venis, aut agita
atri, aut me laborantem adjitva.'
§ 69. THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM, 1563. 535
Geneva. Thomas Erastus (Lieber), Professor of Medicine at Heidel-
berg, and afterwards of Ethics at Basle (died 1583), opposed excom-
munication, and defended the supremacy of the state in matters of
religion ; hence the term c Erastianism3 (equivalent to Csesaropapism).
PBEPAEATION AND PUBLICATION OF THE CATECHISM.
The HEIDELBERG Catechism, as it is called after the city of its birth,
or the PALATINATE (also PALATINE) Catechism, as it is named after the
country for which it was intended, was prepared on the basis of two
Latin drafts of Ursinus and a German draft of Olevianus. The pecul-
iar gifts of both, the didactic clearness and precision of the one, and
the pathetic warmth and unction of the other, were blended in beauti-
ful harmony, and produced a joint work which, is far superior to all
the separate productions of either. In the Catechism they surpassed
themselves. They were in a measure inspired for it. At the same
time, they made free and independent use of the Catechisms of Cal-
vin, Lasky, and Bullinger. The Elector took the liveliest interest in
the preparation, and even made some corrections.
In December, 1562, Frederick submitted the work to a general synod
of the chief ministers and teachers assembled at Heidelberg, for revis-
ion and approval. It was published early in 1563, in German, under the
title ' Catechismus, or Christian Instruction, as conducted in the Church-
es and Schools of the Electoral Palatinate.' l It is preceded by a short
Preface of the Elector, dated Tuesday, January 19, 1563, in which he
informs the superintendents, clergymen, and schoolmasters of the Pala-
tinate that, with the counsel and co-operation of the theological faculty
and leading ministers of the Church, he had caused to be made and
set forth a summary instruction or Catechism of our Christian religion
from the Word of God, to be used hereafter in churches and schools
for the benefit of the rising generation.
THE THIRD EDITION AND THE EIG-HTIETH QUESTION".
There appeared, in the year 1563, three official editions of the Cate-
chism with an important variation in the eightieth question, which de-
nounces the Romish mass as * a denial of the one sacrifice of Christ,
1 See the original title in **"* *>~ -j™ above.
VOL. L— M *
536 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
and as an accursed idolatry.' In the first edition this question was
wanting altogether; the second edition has it in part; the third in
full, as it now stands.1 This question was inserted by the express
command of the Elector, perhaps by his own hand, as a Protestant
counter-blast to the Eomish anathemas of the Council of Trent, which
closed its sessions Dec. 4, 1563. Hence the remark at the end of the
second and third editions: 'What has been overlooked in the first
print, as especially on folio 55 [which contains the eightieth question],
has now been added by command of his electoral grace. 1563.'
The same view of the Eomish doctrine of transubstantiation and the
sacrifice of the mass was generally entertained by the Reformers, and
Is set forth as strongly in the Articles of Snialcald and other symbol-
ical books, both Lutheran and Reformed. It must be allowed to re-
main as a solemn protest against idolatry. But the wisdom of inserting
controversial matter into a catechism for the instruction of the youth
has been justly doubted. The eightieth question disturbs the peace-
ful harmony of the book, it rewards evil for evil, it countenances in-
tolerance, which is un-Protestant and unevangelical. It provoked much
unnecessary hostility, and led even, under the Romish rule of the Elect-
or Charles Philip, in 1719, to the prohibition of the Catechism ; but
the loud remonstrance of England, Prussia, Holland, and other Prot-
estant states forced the Elector to withdraw the tyrannical decree
within a year, under certain conditions, to save appearances.
TBANSLATIONS.
The Heidelberg Catechism was translated into all the European and
many Asiatic languages. It has the pentecostal gift of tongues in
a rare degree. It is stated that, next to the Bible, the 'Imitation
of Christ,3 by Thomas & Kempis, and Bunyan's 'Pilgrim's Progress,'
no book has been more frequently translated, more widely circulated
and used. Whole libraries of paraphrases, commentaries, sermons,
attacks, and defenses were written about it. In many Reformed
churches, especially in Holland (and also in the United States), it was
and is to some extent even now obligatory or customary to explain the
1 By the discovery of the copy of the first ed., 1864, the origin of the eightieth question
was satisfactorily decided. A second copy of the original ed. is in the Imperial Library
of Vienna. The Brit. Museum contains a copy of the Engl. trans, by "William Turner,
Doctor pf Physicfc, Imprinted at London, by Richard Jones, 1572,"— ED.
$ 69. THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM, 1563. 537
Catechism from the pulpit every Sunday afternoon. Hence the di
vision of the questions into fifty-two Sundays, in imitation of the ex*
ample set by Calvin's Catechism.1
A Latin translation, for the use of colleges, was made by order of
the Elector, by JOSHUA LAGUS and LAMBERT LUDOLPH PITHOPCETTS, and
appeared soon after the German, since Olevianus sent a copy of each
to Bullinger, in Zurich, as early as April, 1563.2 It is, however, much
inferior to the German in force and unction. The Latin text was
often edited separately as well as in the works of Ursinus, in connec-
tion with his commentary and other Latin commentaries, and in col-
lections of Reformed symbols.3
There are three Dutch translations: the first appeared at Emden,
1563 ; the second, by PETER DATHENUS, in connection with a Dutch
version of the Psalter, in 1566, and very often separately.*
A Greek translation was prepared by a distinguished classical schol-
ar, D. FRED. SYLBFRG, 1597.5
Besides these there are editions in modern Greek, in Hebrew, Ara-
bic, etc.6
Three or four English translations were made from the Latin, and
obtained a wide circulation in Scotland, England, and America.7 A
1 This division was first introduced in the Latin edition of 1566, perhaps earlier. Van Al-
pen, Niemeyer, and others are wrong in dating it from the German edition of 1573 or 1575.
a Doedes gives a fac-simile of the title-page of the Latin edition of 1 563, from a copy in
the University Library at Utrecht. It is nearly the same as the title of the edition of 1566,
given in the literature above.
3 Niemeyer (pp. 428 sqq.) reproduces the edition of 1584, which agrees with the ed. princeps
of 1563 (as far as I can judge from the few fac-simile pages given by Doedes), and with the
text in the Oxford SyHoge, while that in the Graeco-Latm edition of Sylburg slightly differs.
Dr. Louis H. Steiner, of Frederick City, Md., published an elegant and accurate edition under
the title ' Catechesis Religionis Christiana seu Catechismus Heidelbergensis. Baltimore, 1862. »
He gives the variations of three Latin editions : of Cambridge, 1585 ; of Geneva, 1609 (for-
merly in the possession of Chevalier Bunsen) ; and the Oxford Sylfage, 1804.
* On the Dutch translations, see especially the learned work of Professor Doedes, of Utrecht,
pp. 74-128, with fac-similes at the end of the volume.
5 I have before me a Graeco-Latin edition of the Catechism (KO.^^^ ™fe xpuriravucrie
SpqffKcc'ag), by Sylburg, and of the Belgic Confession by Jac. Eevius, printed at Utrecht,
1660. Earlier editions I see noticed in catalogues.
6 Niemeyer (Proleg. p. Ixii.) mentions a Polish translation by Prasmovius, a Hungarian by
Scarasius, an Arabic by GKelius, a Singalese by Konyer, besides French, Italian, Spanish,
English, Bohemian, modern Greek, and Hebrew versions. Dcedes (p. 41) adds a Persian and
a Malayan translation. There are no doubt many other versions.
T An English edition, without the name of the translator, appeared A.D. 1591 at Edin-
burgh, 'by publick Authority, for the Use of Scotland, 'and also repeatedly in connection with
538
THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
more correct one from the German original was prepared for the ter-
centenary celebration of the Catechism, by a learned and able com-
mittee appointed by the German Eeformed Synod in Pennsylvania,
but has not yet come into public use.1
The merits of the Latin and English translations, and their relation
to the German original, may be seen from the following specimens :
THE GERMAN ORIGINAL, 1563.
. SBoS if* bein eintger Srofi tm Ce&en wtb
ini <Ster Jen ?
S)a§ to> mit 2etfc unb @eele, fcetbeS tm Sefcen
unb tm ©terfcen, ntti?t mem, fenbern metiie«
getreucn ©etlanbeS 3efu <£§rifti etgen bin, bcr
mit feinem tfyeuren Slute fiir atte meine <£iin*
ben fcoulommen Begafylet, unb mt<$ au3 after
©etcalt be8 Xeufels erlfifet fjat ; unb alfo be*
toatyret, ba§ ofme ben SBitten metneg 3Sater8
tm §tmmei letn §aar fcon memem
fann fatten, ja aua) mir atteS &u tneiner
!eit btenen mug. S)arum er mic^ aud^
fetncn §etligen <Sei|l beS etcigen SebenS
jtd^crt, unb i^m fort^in gu leben S>DU
tt)ttttg unt> berett mac^t.
2* SBie s>iclc (Stutfe jtnb btr notytg ju
jfenf baf bu in biefem Srojle feliglt^ Uben unb
vcn mo AC I* ?
2)rci ©ttttf e : Sr jlli^, tt>te grop meine @iinbe
unb @Ienb fci, 3um ^nbern, tote td^ toon alien
metnen ©ilnben unb (Sleub ertSfet toerbe. Unb
turn Written, tt>ie i<^ ®ott fiir folc^e (grISfung
foil banfbar fdn.
THE LATIN VERSION, 1563.
Qu. 1. Qua est unica tua consolatio in vita
et in mortef
Quod animo pariter et corpore, sive vivam,
sive moriar, non meus> sed fidissimi Domini
et Servatoris mei Jesus Christi sum proprius,
qui pretioso sanguine suo pro omnibus pec-
catis meis plenissime satisfaciens,sme ab omui
potestate diaboli Hberavit, meque ita conservat,
ut sine voluntate Patris mei coslestis, ne pilus
quidem de meo capite possit cadere : imo vero
etiam omnia saluti mese servire oporteat. Quo-
circa me quoque suo Spiritu de vita seterna
certum facit, utque ipsi deinceps vivam promp-
tum ac paratum reddit.
Qu. 2. Quot sunt tibi scitu necessaria, ut
ista3 consolationefruens, beati vivas et moria-
ris*
Tria. Primum, quanta sit peccati mei et
miseries mese magnitude. Secundum,* quo
pacto ab omni peccato et miseria liberer. Ter-
tinm, quam gratiam Deo pro ea liberatione
debeam.
the 'Psalm-Book and the Book of Common Order/ It is embodied iu Duulop's Collection
of Confessions of Faith, etc., ofpublick authority in the Church of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1719-
1722), VoL II. pp. 273-361, and reproduced by Dr. Horatius Bouar in his Catechisms of the
Scottish Reformation (London, 1866), pp. 112-170. Dr. Bonar says (p. 171): 'There are
several translations of the Heidelberg or Palatine Catechism ; and our Church [the Church
of Scotland] seems not to have kept to one. In the edition of the Book of Common Order
before us (1615), the Catechism is given alone; in that which Dunlop has followed, it has
the * Arguments " and 4 c Uses " of Bastingius. ' Another translation by Bishop HENRY PARRY,
of Worcester (d. 1616), appeared (together with the commentary of Ursinus) at Oxford, 1509
and 1601. It was often republished— at Edinburgh, 1615 (with sundry variations, see Bonar,
p. 172), again in London, 1633, 1645, 1728, 1851, and quite recently (from the Oxford edition,
of 1601 , with the variations of the edition of 1728) by Dr. Gerhart and Dr. Louis Steiner in the
'Mercersburg Review' for 1861, pp. 74 sqq. The one now in use in the Dutch and German
Eeformed Churches in America, is traced (by the late Dr. De Witt of New York) to Dr. LAID-
LIB, originally from Scotland, minister at Mushing, Long Island, and was adopted, 1771, by
the Synod of the Eeformed Dutch Church. These three English translations seem to be only
different recensions of one translation compared with the Latin text.
1 See the tercentenary triglot edition of 1863, noticed in the literature above.
* So also the Oxford Sylloge. The ed. Grceco-Latina of Sylburg reads instead: plenissima
solutione facta.
§ 69. THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM, 1563.
539
SCOTCH EDITION OP 1591.
From Dunlop's Collection (1722).
Ques. 1. What is thy only comfort in life
and in death f
That in soul and body, whether I live or
die, I am not mine own, but I belong unto my
most faithful Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ :
who by his precious blood, most fully satisfy-
ing for all my sins, hath delivered me from the
whole power of the Devil ; and doth so pre-
serve me, that without the will of my heav-
enly Father, not so much as a hair can fall
from my head : yea, all things are made to
serve for my salvation. Wherefore by his
Spirit also, he assureth me of everlasting life,
and maketh me ready and prepared, that
henceforth I may live unto him.
Ques. 2. How many things are needful for
thee to know, to the end [that] thou, enjoying
this comfort, mayest live and die an happy man 9
Three things. First, What is the greatness
of my sin, and of my misery. Secondly, By
what means I may be delivered from all my
sin and misery. Thirdly, What thankfulness
1 owe to God for that deliverance.
THE EECEIVED AMERICAN VERSION, 1771.
Ques. 1. What is thy only comfort in life
and death f
That I with body and soul, both in life and
death, am not my own, but belong unto my
faithful Saviour Jesus Christ, who, with his
precious blood, hath fully satisfied for all my
sins, and delivered me from all the power of
the devil ; and so preserves me that without
the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can
fall from my head ; yea, that all things must
be subservient to my salvation ; and therefore,
by his Holy Spirit, he also assures me of eter-
nal life, and makes me sincerely willing and
/eady henceforth, to live unto him.
Ques. 2. How many things are necessary for
thee to know, that thou, enjoying this comfort,
mayest live and die happily f
Three; the first, how great my sins and
miseries are ; the second, how I may be de-
livered from all my sins and miseries; the
third, how I shall express my gratitude to
God for such deliverance.
BISHOP PARRY'S TRANSLATION (1591).
Oxford Edition of 1601.
Ques. 1. What is thy only comfort in life
and death f
That both in soul and body, whether I live
or die, I am not mine own, but belong wholly1
unto my most faithful Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ, who by his precious blood most fully
satisfying for all my sins, hath delivered me
from all the power of the devil, and so pre-
serveth me, that without the will of my heav-
enly Father not so much as a hair may fall
from my head, yea all things must serve for
my safety. Wherefore by his Spirit also he
assureth me of everlasting life, and maketh
me ready, and prepared, that henceforth I may
live to him.
Ques. 2. How many things are necessary for
thee to know, that thou enjoying this comfort
mayest live and die happily?
Three. The first, what is the greatness of
my sin and misery. The second, how I am de-
livered from all sin and misery. The third,
what thanks I owe unto God for this deliv-
ery.
THE NEW AMERICAN VERSION, 1863.
Ques. 1. What is thy only comfort in life
and in death f
That I, with body and soul, both in life and
I in death, am not my own, but belong to my
f faithful Saviour Jesus Christ, who with His
| precious blood has fully satisfied for all my
sins, and redeemed me from all the power of
the devil ; and so preserves me, that without
the will of my Father in heaven not a hair
can fall from my head ; yea, that all things
must work together for my salvation. Where-
fore, by His Holy Spirit, He also assures me of
eternal life, and makes me heartily willing and
ready henceforth to live unto Him.
Ques. 2. How many things are necessary for
thee to know, that thou in this comfort mayest
live and die happily f
Three things : First, the greatness of my
sin and misery. Second, how I am redeemed
| from all my sins and misery. Third, how I
j am to be thankful to God for such redemp-
tion.
NOTE. — AH the English versions, except the last, follow the Latin in its departures from
the German, as 'most faithful Lord' (fidelissimi Domini) for 'faithful' (getreueri), 'heavenly
Father' (Patris ccelestis) for 'Father in heaven' (Vater im Himmel). The dependence on
the Latin may be seen also in the words 'most fully satisfying' (plenissime satisfadens),
'delivered' (liberavit) for 'redeemed' (erldset), 'delivery* (liberatio) for 'redemption' (Ear-
1 The redundant 'wholly' occurs also in the Edinburgh edition of 1615, which, to judge
from the specimens given by Horatius Bonar (in Catechisms of the Scottish Reformation^
p. 172), is a reprint of Parry's translation with a few variations.
540 THE CBEEBS OF CEBISTENDOM.
I8sung\ and in the omission of 'heartily* (von Herzen\ for which, however, the common
American version (which seems to have made use also of the Dutch version) substitutes
'sincerely.'
CHARACTER AND AIM.
The Heidelberg Catechism answers the double purpose of a guide
for the religious instruction of the youth and a confession of faith for
the Church.
As a catechism it is an acknowledged masterpiece, with few to equal
and none to surpass it Its only defect is that its answers are mostly
too long for the capacity and memory of children. It is intended for
a riper age. Hence an abridgment was made as early as 1585, but no
attempts to simplify and popularize it have been able to supersede it.
As a standard of public doctrine the Heidelberg Catechism is the
most catholic and popular of all the Reformed symbols. The German
Reformed Church acknowledges no other. The Calvinistic system is
herein set forth with wise moderation, and without its sharp, angular
points. This may be a defect in logic, but it is an advantage in re-
ligion, which is broader and deeper than logic. Children and the
mass of the people are unable to appreciate metaphysical distinctions
and the transcendent mysteries of eternal decrees. The doctrine of
election to holiness and salvation in Christ (or the positive and edify-
ing part of the dogma of predestination) is indeed incidentally set
forth as a source of humility, gratitude, and comfort (Ques. 1, 31,
53, 54), but nothing is said of a double predestination, or of an eter-
nal decree of reprobation^ or of a limited atonement (comp. Ques. 87).
These difficult questions are left to private opinion and theological
science. This reserve is the more remarkable since the authors (as
well as all other Reformers, except Melanchthon in his later period)
were strict predestinarians.
PLAN AND ARRANGEMENT.
The Heidelberg Catechism follows the order of the Epistle to the
Romans, and is divided into three parts. The first two questions are
introductory. The first part treats of the sin and misery of man
(Ques. 3-11 ; comp. Rom. i. 18-iii. 20) ; the second of the redemption
by Christ (Ques. 12-85; comp. Rom. iii. 21-xi. 36); the third of the
thankfulness of the redeemed, or the Christian life (Ques. 86-129 ;
comp. Rom. xii.-xvi). The second part is the largest, and contains
§ 69. THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM, 1563. 541
an explanation of all the articles of the Apostles' Creed under the
three heads of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy
Ghost. The doctrine of the sacraments is rightly incorporated in
this part, instead of being treated in separate sections, as in the Ro-
man and Lutheran Catechisms. The third part gives an exposition
of the Decalogue (as a rule of obedience, viewed in the light of re-
demption) and of the Lord's Prayer.
This order corresponds to the development of religious life and to
the three leading ideas of repentance, faith, and love. The conception
of Christian life, as an expression of gratitude for redeeming grace, is
truly evangelical. In older catechisms the five or six parts of a cate-
chism— namely, the Creed, the Decalogue, the Lord's Prayer, Bap-
tism, the Lord's Supper — are mechanically co-ordinated ; here they are
worked up into an organic system.
The execution is admirable throughout. Several answers are ac-
knowledged gems in the history of catechetical literature — e. g., the
definition of faith (Ques. 21), on providence (Ques. 27 and 28), on the
significance of the Christian name (Ques. 31 and 32), on the benefit
of the ascension (Ques. 49), and on justification by faith (Ques. 60).
THE SPIRIT OF THE CATECHISM.
The genius of the Catechism is brought out at once in the first
question, which contains the central idea, and strikes the key-note.
It is unsurpassed for depth, comfort, and beauty, and, once committed
to memory, can never be forgotten. It represents Christianity in its
evangelical, practical, cheering aspect, not as a commanding law, not
as an intellectual scheme, not as a system of outward observances, but
as the best gift of God to man, as a source of peace and comfort in
life and in death. What can be more comforting, what at the same
time more honoring and stimulating to a holy life than the assurance
of being owned wholly by Christ our blessed Lord and Saviour, who
sacrificed his own spotless life for us on the cross i The first question
and answer of the Heidelberg Catechism is the whole gospel in a
nutshell; blessed is he who can repeat it from the heart apd hold
it fast to the end.1
1 Dr.Nevin (Tercentenary Edition, IntroA. p. 95) says: *No question in the whole Cate-
chism has heen more admired than this, and none surely is more worthy of admiration.
542 * H£ CELEBS OF CHRISTENDOM.
It would be difficult to find a more evangelical definition of faith
than in Ques. 21 : * Faith is not only a certain knowledge, whereby I
hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in his Word ; but also
a hearty trust, which the Holy Spirit works in me by the gospel, that
not only to others, but to me also, forgiveness of sins, everlasting
righteousness, and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace,
only for the sake of Christ's merits.3 How rich and consoling is the
lesson derived from God's all-ruling Providence in Ques. 28 ! t That
we may be patient in adversity, thankful in prosperity, and for what
is future have good confidence in our faithful God and Father, that
no creature shall separate us from his love, since all creatures are so
in his hand that without his will they can not so much as move.'
The Catechism is a work of religious enthusiasm, based on solid
theological learning, and directed by excellent judgment. It is bap-
tized with the pentecostal fire of the great Eeformation, yet remark-
ably free from the polemic zeal and intolerance which characterized
that wonderfully excited period — by far the richest and deepest in
Church history next to the age of Christ and his inspired apostles.
It is the product of the heart as well as the head, full of faith and
unction from above. It is fresh, lively, glowing, yet clear, sober, self-
sustained. The ideas are Biblical and orthodox, and well fortified by
apt Scripture proofs.1 The language is dignified, terse, nervous, popu-
lar, and often truly eloquent. It is the language of devotion as well as
instruction. Altogether the Heidelberg Catechism is more than a book,
it is an institution, and will live as long as the Eef ormed Church.
Where shall we find, in the same compass, a more beautifully graphic, or a more impres-
sively Ml and pregnant representation of all that is comprehended for us in the grace of our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ? Tor thousands and tens of thousands, during the past three
hundred years, it has been as a whole system of theology in the best sense of the term, their
pole-star over the sea of life, and the sheet-anchor of their hope amid the waves of death.
But what we quote it for now is simply to show the mind that actuates and rules the Cate-
chism throughout. We have here at once its fundamental conception and the reigning law
of its construction ; the key-note, we may say, which governs its universal sense, and whose
grandly solemn tones continue to make themselves heard through all its utterances from be-
ginning to end.'
1 Ques. 44 is hardly an exception ; for the idea therein expressed is no error per se, but
only a false interpretation of the article on Christ's descent into hell (Hades) in the Apos«
ties* Creed, which places it, as an actual fact, between death and the resurrection, in accord-
ance with the Scriptnres (Luke xxiii. 43 ; Acts ii. 27, 31 ; 1 Pet. iii. 19 ; iv. 6 ; Eph. iv. 9, 10) ;
while the Catechism, following Calvin and Lasky, understands it figuratively of Christ's suf-
fering on the cross.
§ 69. THE HEJDELBEBG CATECHISM, 1563. 543
COMPARISON WITH THE LUTHERAN AND WESTMINSTER CATECHISMS.
The Heidelberg Catechism stands mediating between Luther's Small
Catechism, which appeared thirty-four years earlier (1529), and the
Shorter Westminster Catechism, which was prepared eighty-four years
later (1647).
These are the three most popular and useful catechisms that Prot-
estantism has produced, and have still the strongest hold upon the
churches they represent. They have the twofold character of cate-
chisms and symbolical books. They are alike evangelical in spirit
and aim; they lead directly to Christ as the one and all-sufficient
Saviour, and to the Word of God as the only infallible rule of the
Christian's faith and life.
Luther's Catechism is the most churchly of the three, and adheres
to the Catholic tradition in its order and arrangement. It assigns a
very prominent place to the Sacraments, treating them in separate
chapters, co-ordinate with the Decalogue, the Creed, and the Lord's
Prayer; while the others incorporate them in the general exposition
of the articles of faith. Luther teaches baptismal regeneration and
the corporeal presence, and even retains private confession and abso-
lution as a quasi-sacrament. Heidelberg and Westminster are free
from all remnants of sacerdotalism and sacramentalism, and teacl
the Calvinistic theory of the sacraments, which rises, however, much
higher than the Zwinglian.
On the other hand, the Lutheran and the Heidelberg Catechisms
differ from the Westminster in the following points : 1. They retain
the Apostles' Creed as the basis of doctrinal exposition ; while the West-
minster Catechism puts it in an appendix, and substitutes a new log
ical scheme of doctrine for the old historical order of the Creed,
2. They are subjective, and address the catechumen as a Church mem-
ber, who answers from his real or prospective personal experience ;
while the Westminster Catechism is objective and impersonal, and
states the answer in an abstract proposition. 3. They use the warm
and direct language of life, the Westminster the scholastic language of
dogma ; hence the former two are less definite but more expansive and
suggestive than the Presbyterian formulary, which, on the other hand,
far surpasses them in brevity, terseness, and accuracy of definition.
544: TfiE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Upon the whole we prefer the catechetical style and method of the
creative Reformation period, because it is more Biblical and fresh,
to that of the seventeenth century — the age of scholastic orthodoxy—-
although we freely concede the relative progress and peculiar excel-
lences of the Westminster standard.1
The Heidelberg Catechism differs from that of Luther — 1. By its
fullness and thoroughness, and hence it is better adapted to a maturer
age ; while that of Luther has the advantage of brevity and childlike
simplicity, and adaptation to early youth. The one has one hundred
and twenty-nine, the other only forty questions and answers, and of
these only three are devoted to the exposition of the Apostles' Creed,
while the Sacraments receive disproportionate attention. 2. The Hei-
delberg Catechism gives the words of the Decalogue in full, accord-
ing to the twentieth chapter of Exodus, and follows the old Jewish
and Greek division, which is adopted by the best commentators ; while
Luther presents merely an abridgment,2 and follows the Roman di-
vision by omitting the second commandment and splitting the tenth
into two.3 3. The former gives a summary of the law, through which
comes the knowledge of sin, in the first part (Ques. 3 and 4), but ex-
plains the Decalogue in the third division, viewing it in its Christian
aspect as a permanent rule of life; while Luther regards the law
in its Jewish or pedagogic aspect, as a schoolmaster leading men to
Christ, and hence he puts it as the first head before the Creed. Dr-
sinus correctly says : < The Decalogue belongs to the first part so far
as it is a mirror of our sin and misery, but also to the third part as
1 'It may be questioned,' says Dr. Bonar, of the Free Church of Scotland, * whether the
Church gained any thing by the exchange of the Reformation standards for those of the
seventeenth century. The scholastic mold in which the latter are cast has somewhat
trenched upon the ease and breadth which mark the former; and the skillful metaphysics
employed at Westminster in giving lawyer-like precision to each statement have imparted a
local and temporary aspect to the new which did not belong to the more ancient standards.
Or, enlarging the remark, we may say that there is something about the theology of the
Reformation which renders it less likely to become obsolete than the theology of the cove-
nant. The simpler formulas of the older age are quite as explicit as those of the later ; while
by the adoption of the Biblical in preference to the scholastic mode of expression they
have secured for themselves a buoyancy which will bear them up when the others go down.
The old age of that generation is likely to be greener than that of their posterity.' (Cate-
chisms of the Scottish Reformation, Preface, p. viii.)
* For example, the fourth (tiiird) commandment is thus condensed: 'Du soflst den Feier*
tag heiligen* (Thou shalt keep holy the rest-day).
3 Comp. p. 251, note 2.
§ 69. THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM, 1563,
being the rule of our new obedience and Christian life.'1 4. In the
rendering of the Creed, besides minor verbal differences, the Heidel-
berg Catechism retains * the holy catholic Church,3 with the addition of
'Christian5 (eine heilige allgemeine christliche Kirchd) ; while Luther's
omits 'catholic/ and substitutes for it < Christian.32 5. In the Lord's
Prayer the Heidelberg Catechism uses the modern form ' Our Father3
(Utiser Vater\ while Luther in his Catechism (though not in his trans-
lation of Matt. vi. 9 and Luke xi. 2) adheres to the Latin and old Ger-
man form of c Father our' (Vater unser\ a difference tenaciously main-
lined by German Lutherans. The former divides the Prayer into six
petitions (with the Greek commentators), and renders fc TrovijpoB ' from
the evil one' (vom JB'osen, i. e., from the devil) ; while Luther (with
Augustine) numbers seven petitions, and translates (herein agreeing
with the English version) 'from evil' (vom Uebel).
The difference between the Heidelberg and Westminster Catechisms
is chiefly one of nationality. Where the choice is between the two, the
former will be used in preference by Germans, the other by Scotch and
English Presbyterians. The Westminster Shorter Catechism has the
advantage of greater condensation and precision. It is not impossible
to make a better one than either by blending the excellences of both.
They represent also two types of piety : the one is more emotional and
hearty, the other more scholastic and intellectual. This appears at
once in the first question. The Heidelberg Catechism asks : * What is
thy only comfort in life and in death?' The Westminster: 'What is
the chief end of man ¥ The one goes at once into the heart of evan-
gelical piety—- the mystical union of the believer with Christ; the other
goes back to the creation and the glory of God ; but both teach the
same God and Christ, and the same way of salvation, whereby God is
glorified, and man is raised to everlasting felicity in his enjoyment
1 The Germans express the different aspects of the law by calling it a Sundenspiegel, Siin-
denriegel, and Lebensregel, a mirror of sin. a bar of sin, and a rule of life.
a Hence in Germany the term * Catholic7 and * Romanist ' are used synonymously, and the
proverb 'Das ist urn katholisch zu werden' expresses a desperate condition of things. The
English Churches have properly retained the term 'catholic' in its good old sense, instead of
allowing Koxnanists to monopolize it.
546 THE CREEDS OP CHRISTENDOM.
HISTORY OF THE CATECHISM.
1. The Heidelberg Catechism was greeted with great joy, and was at
once introduced into the churches and schools of the Lower Palatinate ;
while the Upper Palatinate, under the governorship of Louis (the eld-
est son of Frederick III.), remained strictly Lutheran.
But, like every good book, it had to pass through a trial of proba-
tion and a fire of martyrdom. Even before it was printed an anon-
ymous writer attacked the Heidelberg Synod which, in December,
1562, had adopted the Catechism in manuscript, together with sundry
measures of reform.1 After its publication it was violently assailed
by strict Lutherans for its alleged Zwiuglian and Calvinistic heresies,
and by Jesuits on account of the condemnation of the idolatry of the
mass in the eightieth question. The first opponents were Lutheran
princes (Margrave Charles II. of Baden, Duke Christopher of "Wur-
temberg, the Palatine of Zweibriicken), and Lutheran divines, such as
Heshusius, Placing, Brentius, and Andrese.2 Ursinus wrote an able
apology of his Catechism, which is embodied in several older editions
since 1584. A theological colloquy was held at Maulbronn in April,
1564, where the theological leaders of the Lutheran Duchy of Wiir-
temberg and the Eeformed Palatinate, in the presence of their princes,
debated for six days in vain on the eucharist and the ubiquity of
Christ's body. Both parties were confirmed in their opinions, though
the Eeformed had the best of the argument.3
Frederick IIL, notwithstanding his appeal to Melanchthon and the
Altered Augsburg Confession, was openly charged with apostasy from
the Lutheran faith, and seriously threatened with exclusion from the
peace of the empire. Even the liberal Emperor Maximilian II. wrote
1 This carious document, which throws light upon that Synod hitherto little known, has
been recently recovered and published by Wolters in the Studien undKritiken for 1867, No. 1,
pp. 15 sqq. The Lutheran author, perhaps a dissenting member of the Synod, gives a list
of the measures for the introduction of the Catechism and the abolition of various abuses,
and accompanies them with bitter marginal comments, such as : ' This is a lie and against
God's Word;' 'This is the Anabaptist heresy;' 'To spread ZwingJianismj' ' FrissVogel oder
stirb;1 lAd spargendam zizaniam;' ' Ut citius imbibant venenum;' 'Evangelii alrogatio;'
^Hispanica inquisitioS
2 See on this Lutheran opposition Wolters, 1. c., and in his earlier book, Der Heidelb. Kate-
chismus in seiner Urgestalt (1864), pp. 141-196 ; Nevin, Introd. to the Tercent. Ed. pp. 42
sqq. ; and especially Sudhoff, OUwanus und Ursinus, pp. 140 sqq.
3 S«e above, pp. 288 sqq.
§ 69. THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM, 1563. 547
him a letter of remonstrance. His fate was to be decided at the Diet
of Augsburg, 1566. At this critical juncture the pious Elector boldly
defended his Catechism, which, he said, was all taken from the Bible,
and so well fortified with marginal proof-texts that it could not be
overthrown. He declared himself willing to yield to Q-od's truth, if
any one could show him any thing better from the Scripture, which
was at hand for the purpose. Altogether he made, at the risk of his
crown and his life, such a noble and heroic confession as reminds us
of Luther's stand at the Diet of Worms. Even his Lutheran oppo-
nents were filled with admiration and praise, and left him thereafter
in quiet possession of his faith. 'Why do ye persecute this man?'
said the Margrave of Baden ; * he has more piety than the whole of
us.5 The Elector Augustus of Saxony gave similar testimony on this
memorable occasion.1
Thus the Catechism had gained a sort of legal existence in the Ger-
man empire, although it was not till after the Thirty-Tears' War, in
the Treaty of Westphalia, that the Eeformed Church, as distinct from
the Lutheran, was formally recognized in Germany.
After the death of Frederick it had to pass through another perse-
cution in the home of its birth. His successor, Louis VI. (1576-1583),
exiled its authors, and replaced it by Luther's Catechism and the Form-
ula of Concord. But under the regency of Frederick's second son,
Prince John Casimir, the Heidelberg Catechism and the Reformed
Church were restored to their former honor, and continued to flourish
till the outbreak of the Thirty-Tears' War.
This war brought terrible devastation and untold misery upon Hei-
delberg and the Palatinate, which were laid waste by the merciless
Tilly (1622). Then followed the repeated invasions of Turenne,
Melac, and Marshal de Lorges, under Louis XIY. The Palatinate
fell even into the hands of Roman Catholic rulers (1685), and never
again rose to its former glory. Thousands of Protestants emigrated
to America, and planted the Catechism in Pennsylvania, so that what
it lost in the old world it gained in the new. The indifferentisra and
1 Hnndeshagen says of Frederick III. : * He is acknowledged to be the greatest ruler
which the evangelical Palatinate ever had, and as to personal piety and loyalty to his faith
the shining model of an evangelical prince.' See his art. on the City and University of
Heidelberg, in the Gedenkbuch der SQQjakr. Jubelfeier des ffeidelb. Kat. pp. 58, 59.
54:8 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
rationalism of the eighteenth century allowed all creeds to go into
disuse and neglect. In the nineteenth century faith revived, and
with it respect for the Heidelberg Catechism ; but, owing to the intro-
duction of the union of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches in the
Grand Duchy of Baden, to which Heidelberg now belongs, it was
merged into a new catechism compiled from it and from that of
Luther.1
2. The history of the Palatinate Catechism extends far beyond the
land of its birth. It took deeper root and acquired greater influence in
other countries. Soon after its appearance it commended itself by its
intrinsic excellences to all Reformed Churches of the German tongue.
It was introduced in East Friesland, Jiilich (Juliers), Cleve (Cleves),
Berg, the Wupperthal, Bremen, Hesse Cassel, Anhalt, Brandenburg,
East and West Prussia, the free imperial cities, in Hungary, Poland,
and in several cantons of Switzerland, as St. Gall, Schaffimusen, and
Berne.2 In the royal house of Prussia it is still used in the instruc-
tion of the princes, even after the introduction of the union of the
two confessions.3
It was surrounded with a large number of learned works which fill
an important place in the history of Reformed theology. Eminent
professors made it the basis of lectures in the University.
In no country was the Catechism more honored than in Holland
and her distant colonies in Asia and Africa. It soon replaced the
catechisms of Calvin and Lasky. The synods of Wesel, 1568, of
Emden, 1571, and of Dort, 1574, recommended and enjoined its use ;
and ministers were required to explain it to the people in fifty-two
lessons throughout the year in the afternoon service of the Lord's day.
In the beginning of the sixteenth century the Arminians called for a
1 On the symbolical status of the Evangelical Church in Baden, see two essays of Dr. Hun-
deshagen, Die Bekenntnissgrundlage der vereinigten evangelischen Kirche im Grossherzog-
thum Baden (1851), and an address delivered before a Pastoral Conference at Durlach, on
the same subject, 1851, repnblished in his Schriften und Abhandlunaen, ed. by Dr. Christlieb,
Gotha, 1875, Vol. H. pp. 119 sqq.
2 The editions used in the Canton Berne have an anti-supralapsarian addition to Question 27 :
'Und obwohl die Sunden durch Gottes Fursehung werden regiert, so i$t dock Gott Jceine Ur-
sache der Sunde; denn das Ziel unterscheidet die Werke. Siehe JSxempel an Joseph und
seinen Brudem, an David und Simei, an Christo und den Juden.' This addition is found as
early as 1 697. Noticed by Trechsel in Studien und Kritiken for 1867, p. 574.
* So I was informed by the late court chaplain, Dr. Snethlage, of Berlin, who was orig-
inally Reformed, and who confirmed several members of the royal family.
§ 69. THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM, 1563. 549
revision of it, to remove certain features to which they objected. But
the famous General Synod of Dort, after a careful examination, op-
posed any change, and, in its 148th Session, May 1, 1619, it unani-
mously delivered the judgment that the Heidelberg Catechism 'formed
altogether a most accurate compend of the orthodox Christian faith ;
being, with singular skill, not only adapted to the understanding of
the young, but suited also for the advantageous instruction of older
persons ; so that it could continue to be taught with great edification
in the Belgic churches, and ought by all means to be retained.' This
judgment was agreed to by all the foreign delegates from Germany,
Switzerland, and England, and has thus an oecumenical significance
for the Reformed communion.
The Heidelberg Catechism was also clothed with symbolical author-
ity in Scotland, and was repeatedly printed ' by public authority,5 even
after the Westminster standards had come into use. It seems to have
there practically superseded Calvin's Catechism, but it was in turn su-
perseded by Craig's Catechism, and Craig's by that of the Westmin-
ster Assembly.
3. From Holland the Heidelberg Catechism crossed the Atlantic to
Manhattan Island (1609), with the discoverer of the Hudson River, and
was the first Protestant catechism planted on American soil* A hun-
dred years later, German emigrants, driven from the Palatinate by
Romish persecution and tyranny, carried it to Pennsylvania and other
colonies. It has remained ever since the honored symbol of the Dutch
and German Reformed Churches in America, and will continue to be
used as long as they retain their separate denominational existence, or
even if they should unite with the larger Presbyterian body.
One of the first acts of the reunited Presbyterian Church, in the
United States, at the session of the General Assembly in Philadelphia,
May, 1870, was the formal sanction of the use of the Heidelberg Cate-
chism in any congregation which may desire it.1
1 A special committee, appointed by the Old School Assembly of 1869, reported to the first
reunited Assembly of 1870, after a laudatory description of the Heidelberg Catechism, the
following resolutions, which were unanimously adopted :
1. Resolved, That this General Assembly recognizes in the Heidelberg Catechism a valua-
ble Scriptural compendium of Christian doctrine and duty.
2. Resolved, That if any churches desire to employ the Heidelberg Catechism in the in*
struction of their children, they may do so with the approbation of this Assembly.
See the Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of
550 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
4 In the year 1863, three centuries after its first publication, the
Heidelberg Catechism witnessed its greatest triumph, not only in
Germany and Holland, but still more in a land which the authors
never saw, and in a language the sound of which they probably
never heard. The Keformation was similarly honored in 1817, and
the Augsburg Confession in 1830, but no other catechism.
In Germany the tercentenary celebration of the Heidelberg Cate-
chism was left to individual pastors and congregations, and called
forth some valuable publications.1
The German Reformed Church in the United States took it up as
a body, and gave it a wider scope. She made the three-hundredth
anniversary of her confession the occasion for a general revival of
theological and religious life, the publication of a triglot edition of
the Catechism, the endowment of a tercentenary professorship in her
seminary, and the collection of large sums of money for churches,
missions, and other benevolent objects. All these ends were accom-
plished. The celebration culminated in a general convention of min-
isters and laymen in Philadelphia, which lasted a whole week, Janu-
ary 17-23, 1863, in the midst of the raging storm of the civil war.
About twenty interesting and instructive essays on the Catechism and
connected topics, which had been specially prepared for the occasion
by eminent German, Dutch, and American divines, were read in two
churches before crowded and attentive assemblies. Luther, Calvin,
Zwingli, Melanchthon, Frederick III., Ursinus, and Olevianus were
called from their graves to reproduce before an American audience
the ideas, trials, and triumphs of the creative and heroic age of the
[Reformation. Altogether the year 1863 marks an epoch in the history
of the Heidelberg Catechism and of the German Reformed Church
in America.2
America for 1870, p. 120, and the Memorial volume on Presbyterian Reunion (New Tork,
1870), p. 454.
1 Among these we mention the articles on the Heidelberg Catechism by Ullmann, Sack,
Plitt, Hnndeshagen, Wolters, and Trechsel. in the Studien und Kritiken for 1863, 1864, and
1867, the discovery and reprint of the ed. princeps hy Wolters (1864), and a collection of
excellent sermons by distinguished Reformed pulpit orators, under the title, 'Der einzige
Trost im Leben und Sterben,' Elberfeld, 1863.
* Seethe Tercentenary Monument (574 pages), and the Gedenkbuch der dreihundert jahrigen
Jubelfeier desHei demerger Katechismus (449 pages), both published at Philadelphia* 1863. The
§ G9. THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM, 1563. 551
OPINIONS ON THE CATECHISM.
We close this chapter with a selection from the many warm com-
mendations which the Heidelberg Catechism has received from dis-
tinguished divines of different countries.
HENRY BULLINGER, the friend and successor of Zwingli, himself the
author of a catechism (1559) and of the Second Helvetic Confession
(1566), wrote to a friend:
* The order of the book is clear ; the matter true, good, and beautiful ; the whole is lumi-
nous, fruitful, and godly ; it comprehends many and great truths in a small compass. I
believe that no better catechism has ever been issued.'1
The HESSIAN divines quoted by David Pareus :
' There is no catechism more thorough, more perfect, and better adapted to the capacity
of adults as well as the young. '
The English delegates to the Synod of Dort, George Carleton (Bishop
of Llandaff), John Davenant (afterwards Bishop of Salisbury), Arch-
deacon Samuel Ward, Dr. Thomas Groade, and Walter Balcanqual, said.*
* That neither their own nor the French Church had a catechism so suitable and excellent;
that those who had compiled it were therein remarkably endowed and assisted by the Spirit
of God ; that in several of their works they had excelled other theologians, but that in the
composition of this Catechism they had outdone themselves.'3
The favorable judgment of the Synod of Dort itself has already
been quoted.
Dr. ULLMANN (d. 1865), formerly Professor at Heidelberg, and one
of the best Church historians of the nineteenth century:3
* The Heidelberg Catechism, more systematically executed than Luther's, unfolds upon the
fundamental thoughts of sin, redemption, and thankfulness, the Reformed doctrine, yet with-
out touching upon predestination, with rare pithiness and clearness, and obtained through
these excellences not only speedy and most extended recognition in the Reformed Churches,
but is to-day still regarded by all parties as one of the most masterly productions in this de-
partment.'
German edition gives the correspondence and essays of Drs. Herzog, Ebrard, Ullmann, Hun-
deshagen, Lange, and Schotel, in the original German, together with a history of the Cate-
chism by the editor. The Anglo-American essays and addresses of Drs. Nevin, Schaff, Ger-
hart, Harbaugh, Wolff, Bomberger, Porter, De Witt, Kieffer, Theodor and Thomas Appel,
Schneck, Russell, Gans, and Bausmann, are found in full in the English edition.
1 * Arbitror meliorem Catechismum non editum esse* Deo sit gloria qui largiatur succession*
(1563). See Ursinus, Apol CatecK. in the Prafatio.
3 This judgment is quoted on the title-page of the later editions of Bishop Parry's transla-
tion, London ed. 1728 ; reprinted, London, 1851.
3 In Piper's Evang. Kalender for 1862, p. 191. Comp. also his art. in the Studien und
Kritiken for 1863, and in the Gedenkbuch, etc.
YOL. I.— 1ST N
£52 TflE CREEDS 0£ CHRISTENDOM.
Dr. AUG. EBEARD, one of the ablest and most prolific German Ee»
formed divines:1
'For wonderful union of dogmatic precision and genial heartiness,3 of lucid perspicuity
and mysterious depth, the Heidelberg Catechism stands alone in its kind. It is at once a
system of theology and a book of devotion ; every child can understand it at the first read-
ing, and yet the catechist finds in it the richest material for profound investigation.'
MATT Go'BEL, the author of an excellent history of Christian life in
the Eeformed Church:3
* The Heidelberg Catechism may be properly regarded as the flower and fruit of the entire
German and French Reformation ; it has Lutheran fervor, Melanchthonian clearness, Zwin-
glian simplicity, and Calvinistic fire blended in one, and therefore— notwithstanding many de-
fects and angles — it has been (together with the Altered Augsburg Confession of 1540), and
remains to this day, the only common confession and doctrinal standard of the entire German
Reformed Church from the Palatinate to the Netherlands, and to Brandenburg and Prussia.'
KARL SUDHOFF, formerly a Eoman Catholic priest, then pastor of
the German Eeformed Church at Frankf ort-on-the-Main : 4
* A peculiar power and unction pervades the whole work, which can not easily be mistaken
by any one. The book, therefore, speaks with peculiar freshness and animation directly to
the soul, because it appears as a confident, joyous confession of the Christian heart assured
of salvation. It is addressed to the heart and will as much as to the head. Keen and pop-
ular unfolding of ideas is here most beautifully united with the deep feeling of piety, as well
as with the earnest spirit of revival and joyous believing confidence. And who that have
read this Catechism, but once can mistake how indissolubly united with these great excellences
is the powerful, dignified, and yet so simple style ! What a true-hearted, intelligible, simple,
and yet lofty eloquence speaks to us even from the smallest questions !'
Dr. K. B. HUNDESHAGEN, Professor of Theology at Heidelberg, after-
wards in Bonn (d. 1873), calls the Heidelberg Catechism a £ witness
of Eeformed loyalty to the Word of God, of Eeformed purity and
firmness of faith, of Eeformed moderation and sobriety,' and a work
*of eternal youth and never-ceasing value.35
Dr. PLTTT, formerly Pastor in Heidelberg, then Professor of Theol-
ogy in Bonn:6
'The Heidelberg Catechism still lives ; it has not died in three hundred years. It lives in
the hearts of Christians. How many catechisms have since then disappeared, how many in
the last thirty or forty years, and have been so long sunk in the "sea of oblivion," that one
scarcely knows their titles. The Heidelberg Catechism has survived its tercentenary jubi-
lee, and will, God willing, see several such jubilees. It will not die ; it will live as long as
there is an Evangelical Church.'
Das Dogma v. heiL Abendmahl, Vol. II. p. 604.
Or, fullness of soul (gemuthtiche Innigkeit).
GescMchte des christL Lebens, VoL I. p. 392.
Theol. HandbucTi zur Aushgung des Heid. Kat. p. 493.
See his instructive review of Sudhoff 's Handbuch, in the Studien und Kritiken for 1864,
pp. 153-180. It is gratifying to me that this distinguished divine fully indorses, on p. 169, the
view which I had previously given of the theology of the Heidelberg Catechism and its rela-
tion to Calvinism in opposition to Sudhoff on the one hand and Heppe on the other.
* In the Studien und Kritiken for 1863, p. 25.
§ 69. THE HEIDELBERG CATECfllSM, 1561 553
Dr. HENBY HAEBAUGH, late Professor of Theology at Mercersburg
(d. 1867), a gifted poet and the author of several popular religious
works : l
'It is worthy of profound consideration, that the Heidelberg Catechism, which has always
ruled the heart, spirit, and body of the Reformed side of the Reformation, has no prototype
in any of the Reformers. Zwingli and Calvin can say, It is not of me ; it has the suavity but
not the compromising spirit of Melanchthon. It has nothing of the dashing terror of Luther.
What is stranger than all, it is farthest possible removed from the mechanical scholasticism
and rigid logic of Ursinus, its principal author. Though it has the warm, practical, sacred,
poetical fervor of Olevianus, it has none of his fire and flame. It is greater than Reformers ;
it is purer and sounder than theologians. '
Dr. J. W, NEVIN, successively Professor of Theology in the Presbyterian
Seminary at Alleghany, in the German Reformed Seminary at Mercers-
burg, and President of Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster, Pa. :2
*In every view, we may say, the Catechism of the Palatinate, now three hundred years old,
is a book entitled, in no common degree, to admiration and praise. It comes before us as the
ripe product of the proper confessional life of the Reformed Church, in the full bloom of its
historical development, as this was reached at the time when the work made its appearance.
Its wide-spread and long-continued popularity proclaims its universal significance and worth.
It must have been admirably adapted to the wants of the Church at large, as well as admira-
bly true to the inmost sense of its general life, to come in this way into such vast credit.
Among all Protestant symbols, whether of earlier or later date, there "is no other in which we
find the like union of excellent qualities combined and wrought together in the same happy
manner. It is at once a creed, a catechism, and a confession ; and all this in such a manner,
at the same time, as to be often a very liturgy also, instinct with the full spirit of worship and
devotion. It is both simple and profound ; a fit manual of instruction for the young, and yet
a whole system of divinity for the old; a text-book, suited alike for the use of the pulpit and
the family, the theological seminary, and the common school. It is pervaded by a scientific
spirit, beyond what is common in formularies of this sort ; but its science is always earnestly
and solemnly practical. In its whole constitution, as we have seen, it is more a great deal
than doctrine merely, or a form of sound words for the understanding. It is doctrine appre-
hended and represented continually in the form of life. It is for the heart every where full
as much as for the head. Among its characteristic perfections deserves to be noted always,
with particular praise, its catholic spirit, and the rich mystical element that pervades so large-
ly its whole composition. . . . Simple, beautiful, and clear in its logical construction, the sym-
bol moves throughout also in the element of fresh religious feeling. It is full of sensibility
and faith and joyous childlike trust Its utterances rise at times to a sort of heavenly pathos,
and breathe forth almost lyrical strains of devotion.'
Dr. HAGENBAOH, the well-known historian (d. at Basle, 1874) :3
*The Heidelberg Catechism was greeted not only in the Palatinate but in all Eeformed
churches as the correct expression of the Reformed faith, and attained the authority of a
genuine symbolical standard. It was translated into nearly all languages, and has continued
to be the basis of religious instruction to this day. ... Its tone, notwithstanding the scholastic
and dogmatizing or (as Ullmann says) constructive tendency, is truly popular and childlike.*
Then he quotes several questions as models of the catechetical style.
Dr. D ALTON, of St. Petersburg :4
'The Heidelberg Catechism exhibits the harmonious union of the Calvinistic and the
Melanchthonian spirit. It is the ripe fruit of the whole Reformation and the true heir of
1 Li the Mercersburg Review for 1857, p. 102.
2 Tercentenary Edition, Introd. pp. 120-122.
3 KirchengescMchte, Leipz. 1870 (3d edition), Vol. IV. p. 312.
* Immanuel Der Heidelb. Kat., etc., 1870, p. 15.
554 THE CREEDS 0$ CHRISTENDOM.
the treasures gathered, not in ten years, hut during that entire period. It is thoroughly Bib*
lical, and represents its particular denominational type with great wisdom and moderation.
We feel from beginning to end in the clear and expressive word the warm and sound pulse
of a heart that was baptized by the fire and Spirit from above, and knows what it believes.'
It is gratifying that the Lutheran hostility of former days has given
way to a sincere appreciation. Drs. GUBRICKB and KURTZ, two prom-
inent champions of Lutheran orthodoxy in the nineteenth century,
in almost the same words praise the Heidelberg Catechism for 'its
signal wisdom in teaching, its Christian fervor, theological ability,
and mediating moderation.31 Dr. JULIUS STAHL, an eminent jurist
and the ablest apologist of modern Lutheranism within the Prussian
Union, derived the religious revival of the Lutheran Church in his
native Bavaria and his own conversion chiefly from the late venera-
ble Eef ormed pastor and professor, Dr. J. Chr. G. L. Kraff t, in Er-
langen (died 1845). 'The man/ he said, before the General Synod
at Berlin, 1846, c who built up the Church in my fatherland, the most
cvpostolie 'man I ever met m my life. Pastor Krafft, was a strict ad-
herent of the Reformed creed. Whether he carried the Heidelberg
Catechism in his pocket I know not, but this I know, that he caused
throughout the whole land a spring to bloom whose fruits will ripen
for eternity.3 2
§ 70. THE BKANBENBUBG- CONFESSIONS.
(Confessiones Marchicce.)
Literature.
HAKCKHOOH: PreussischeKircTienhistorie. Frankf. 1686.
ZOKN : Historia derer zwischen den Luthertechen und Reformirten Theologia gehaltenen CoUoquiorum.
HambTirg,IT05.
D. H. HEBLNG: HistorisGTte Nachrfcht von dem ersten Anfang der evang.^reformirten Kircte in Bran-
denburg und Preussen unter dem gottseligen Churfursten Johann Sigiwnund, nebst den drei Bekenntntes-
Schriften dieser Kfrche. Halle, 1778. The same : Neue Beitrdge zur Geschichte der evatngel-rtfbrm. Kirche
in den Preuss. Brandenburg. Ldndem. Berlin, 1787.
C. W. HEBISTO : Gesohichte der UrcWehen, Vnwnsversuche seit der Reformation. Leipzig, 1836, 183T.
BECK: Symbol* BucTter der ev.-reform. Eirche, Vol. L pp. 472 sqq. ; Vol. EL pp. 110 sqq., 130 sqq.
KIEMKYBB: Collectio, Proleg-. pp. Ixxiv. sqq. and 642-689.
BOOEXX.: Die BeJcenntniss-Schrtften, etc., pp.426 sqq.
MOU.EB : Joh. Sigtemund'a Vebertritt zum reform. Betermtoiiss, in the Deutsche Zeitschri/t Berlin, 1858,
pp. 189 sqq.
AT.T.T. SOHWBIZKB: Die Protest. Centratdogmen, Vol. EL pp. 6 sqq., 525 sqq., 531 sqq.
Comp. Herzog's Encyklop. articles : Leipziger Colloquium, Vol. VIII. p. 286 ; Joh. Sigitmund, Vol. XIV.
p. 364 ; and Thorn (by Henke), Vol. XVI. p. 101.
Brandenburg, the central province of Prussia, with Berlin as its
capital, ruled since 1415 by princes of the house of Hohenzollern, at
1 Guericke, Kirchengeschichte, YoL HI. p. 610 (7th edition), and his Symbolik. Kurtz,
Lehrbuch der J&rchengeschichte, p. 508 (5th edition).
» See art. Krafft, by Goebel, in Herzog's Encykl Vol. VIII. p. 37.
§ 70. THE CONFESSION OF SIGISMUND, 1614. 555
first embraced the Lutheran Eeformation, but at the beginning of the
seventeenth century the Elector became Calvinistic, drawing with
him a few influential ministers and congregations. This Eeformed
diaspora received an accession of about twenty thousand exiled Hu-
guenots under the liberal policy of the great Elector Frederick Will-
iam (1620-1688), the proper founder of the Prussian monarchy, who
secured the legal recognition of the Reformed Church in the Treaty
of Westphalia (1648).
There are three Eeformed Confessions of Brandenburg — namely,
the Confession of the Elector Sigismund (1614), the Leipzig Colloquy
(1631), and the Declaration of Thorn (1645). They bear a moderate-
ly Calvinistic, we may say a Unionistic, type, and had a certain sym-
bolical authority in Brandenburg till the introduction of the union of
the Lutheran and Eeformed Churches in 1817. The great Elector
mentions them together in 1664. The Canons of Dort were respect-
fully received but never adopted by the Brandenburg divines.
THE CONFESSION" OF SIGISMUND. A.D. 1614.
See the original German text in the collections of Beck, Niemeyer, Bockel, and also in Heppe'e Be-
kcnntniss-Schrjften der reform. Kirchen Deutschlands, pp. 284-294.
John Sigismund (or Siegmund), Elector of Brandenburg (b. 1572,
d. 1619) and ancestor of the royal line of Prussia, was brought up in
the rigorous orthodoxy of the Lutheran Formula of Concord, and in
his twenty-first year a solemn pledge was exacted from him by his
father that he would always adhere to this creed (1593). But re-
ligious compulsion had on him an effect directly contrary to that con-
templated (as is often the case with independent minds). His social re-
lations with Holland, Cleves, and the Palatinate gave him a favorable
impression of the doctrines and discipline of the Calvinistic Churches.
In 1608 he succeeded to the throne. At Christmas, 1613, he publicly
professed the Eeformed faith by receiving the holy communion, ac-
cording to the Eeformed rite, in the Dome of Berlin, together with
fifty-four others, including his brother John George, the Count of Nas-
sau, Ernst Casimir, and the English embassador.
This act was the result of conscientious conviction.1 It was meant
1 Some writers, including Voltaire, trace the change to political motives— viz., that Sigis-
mund wished to secure the friendship of Holland and England — but without proof. On the
556 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
to be not so much a change of creed as a further progress in Protest-
antism, but it created a great sensation, and called forth violent pro-
tests from Lutheran princes and pulpits.1 An edict forbidding public
denunciations had little effect. A fanatical mob arose in rebellion
against the Reformed preachers, and plundered their houses (1615).
The great majority of the Elector's subjects and his own wife re-
mained Lutherans.2
Nevertheless, his transition was of great prospective importance,
for the house of Brandenburg was destined to become, by extraordi-
nary talents and achievements, one of the leading dynasties of Europe,
and to take the helm of the new Protestant German empire.
In May, 1614, Sigismund issued a personal confession of faith,
which is called after him and also after his country. It was drawn
up by himself, with the aid of Dr. Pelargus, General Superintendent
at Frankfort-on-the-Oder. It is brief, moderate, conciliatory, and in-
tended to be merely supplementary concerning the controverted arti-
cles. The Elector professes faith in the * true, infallible, and saving
Word of God, as the only rule of the pious which is perfect, sufficient
for salvation, and abides forever.' Then he accepts, as agreeing with
the Bible, the oecumenical creeds (namely, the Apostles', the Nicene,
the Athanasian, also the doctrinal decisions of Ephesus, 4:31, and of
Ghalcedon, 451), and the Augsburg Confession of 1530, with the later
improvements of Melanchthon.
In regard to the controverted articles, Sigismund rejects the Luther-
an doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ's body, and exorcism in baptism
as a superstitious ceremony, and the use of the wafer instead of the
breaking of bread in the communion. He adopts the Reformed doc-
trine of the sacraments, and of an eternal and unconditional election
of grace, yet with the declaration that God sincerely wished the salva-
tion of aKL men, and was not the author of sin and damnation.
contrary, it was bad policy, and in its immediate effect rendered the Elector very unpopular
among his German fellow-sovereigns and his own people. c Kein WortJ says Bockel, p. 427,
'keineHaiuttung des Kwjwrsten Jokann Sigismund verratk, dass ikn vrgend eine unreine Ne~
benab$icht gekitet habe.' See also Moller and Hollenberg, I. c.
1 See Rotter's Calvinista auUco-politicus.
aDr. Tholncfc (Geist der father. Theologen Wzttenbergs, p. 118, referring to Hartknoch's
Prms. Kirckenhfetorie, p. 544) mentions the fact that Anna, the wife of Sigismund, in her
will and testament ordered her chaplain in the funeral sermon to disown the Calvinistic (?)
heresy that Christ's blood and death are merely a man's blood and death.
§ 70. THE CONFESSION OF SIGISMUND, 1614. 557
In conclusion the Elector expresses his wish and prayer that (rod
may enlighten his faithful subjects with his truth, but disclaims all
intention to coerce their conscience, since faith was the free gift of
God (John vi. 29 ; 2 Thess. iii. 2 ; Phil. i. 29 ; Eph. iii. 8), and no one
should presume to exercise dominion over men's religion (2 Cor. i. 24).
He thus freely waived, in relation to his Lutheran subjects, the right
of reformation, which was claimed and exercteed by other Protestant
princes, and established a basis for religious liberty and union.
This wise toleration was in advance of the age, and contrasts fa-
vorably with the opposite policy of the Elector Augustus of Saxony,
who forced the Formula of Concord upon his people, and answered
the Emperor Maximilian II., when he interceded for the release from
prison of Peucer (Melanchthon's son-in-law) : < I want only such serv-
ants as believe and confess in religion neither more nor less than I
myself believe and confess.31 These times of terrorism over men's
consciences are happily passed, and Sigismund's toleration has become
the settled policy of his successors to this day.
The conduct of Luther and Zwingli at Marburg gave tone and char-
acter to all subsequent union conferences of the two confessions they
represent. The Reformed, with a larger charity, were always willing
to commune with Lutherans notwithstanding minor doctrinal differ-
ences ; while the Lutherans, with a narrower conscience and a more
compact system of theology, refused the hand of fellowship to the Re-
formed, and abhorred as a syncretistic heresy all union that was not
based upon perfect agreement in dogma ; yea, during the seventeenth
century they would rather make common cause with Romanists than
Calvinists, and went so far as to exclude the Calvinists from heaven.2
1 The Emperor replied : * Das wage ich von meinen Dienern nicht zu fordern.' The same
Elector Augustus said that *if he had only one Calvinistic vein in his body, he wished the
devil (sic !) would pull it out.'
s Dr. Hiilsemann of Wittenberg traced the charitable hope of Calixtus that he would meet
many Reformed in heaven to the inspiration of the devil ('spes dubioprocul a diabolo in&pi-
rata'). Calixtus asked, Who inspired this opinion of Hulsemann ? Leyser wrote a book to
show that communion with Papists was preferable to communion with Calvinists. Another
book of that age professed to prove that 'the damned Calvinistic heretics have six hundred
and sixty-six theses in common with the Turks.' The French Reformed Synod of Charenton
in 1631 sanctioned the admission of Lutheran sponsors in baptism on the ground of essential
agreement of the Augsburg Confession with the Reformed doctrine. This resolution was
pronounced 'atheistic' by Lutherans as well as Romanists. The spirit of Lutheran bigotry
in that classical period of polemic confessionalism and exclusivism is well characterized and
558 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Fortunately Calixtus and Ms school, who had the Melanchthonian
spirit, formed an honorable exception, and the exception, after much
misrepresentation and persecution, has become the rule in the Lutheran
Church.
THE COLLOQTTY AT LEIPZIG. A.D. 1631.
See the German text of the Colloquium Ltpsfense in Niemeyer, pp. 653-668, and in B5ckel, pp. 443-456.
In the midst of the fierce polemics between the Churches and the
horrors of the Thirty-Tears' War growing out of it, there arose from
time to time a desire for union and peace, which was strengthened by
the common danger. In 1629, Ferdinand II., a pupil of the Jesuits,
issued an edict aiming at the destruction of Protestantism, which might
have been accomplished had not G-ustavus Adolphus soon afterwards
appeared on German soil. It was during this period that the classical
union sentence (often erroneously attributed to Augustine), ( In neces-
sary things unity, in doubtful things liberty, in all things charity,3 was
first uttered as a prophetic voice in the wilderness by a Lutheran di-
vine of the school of Calixtus, and re-echoed in England by Eichard
Baxter.1
Under the operation of this feeling and the threatening pressure
of Eomanism, the Elector Christian William of Brandenburg, accom-
panied by his chaplain, JOHN BEECHUS, and the Landgrave William
of Hesse, with the theological Professor CEOCITJS and Chaplain THE-
OPHILTTS NEDBEBeER, met at Leipzig with the Elector George of Saxony
and the Lutheran divines MATTHIAS HOE of HOBNEGG, POLYCAKP LETSEE,
and HENBY HOPFNEB, to confer in a private way about a friendly un-
derstanding between the two confessions, hoping to set a good exam-
ple to other divines of Germany. The conference lasted from March
3 to 23, 1631, and each session continued three hours.
illustrated by Dr. Tholuck, in his Getst der father. Theokgen Wittenlergs im I7ten Jahrh.
(1852), pp. 1 1 5, 169, 211, etc. Comp. also above, p. 346 ; Gieseler, Kirchengeschichte,VoL III.
Pt. II. (1853), p. 456 ; Hase, Kirchengesch. 9th ed. p. 510.
1 See Liicke's treatise, Ueber das Alter, den Verfasser, etc., des kw-chUchenFriedensspruches,
etc., GSttmgen, 1850. He traces it to Bupertus Meldenins, the obscure author of Parcsnesis
votiva pro pace ecclesics ad theologos Augustanoe Confessionis (before 1635), directed against
the $iXodo£ia and $i\cveiKia of the theologians, and commending humility and love of peace.
Here the sentence occurs, 'Si nos servaremus IN NECESSABIIS UNITATEM, IN NON NECESSA-
RIIS LIBERTATEM, IN UTRISQUE CABITATEM, optimo certe loco essent res nostrcB.1 A copy
of the first edition of this book, though without date, is preserved in the City Library of Ham-
burg.
§ 70. THE COLLOQUY AT LEIPZIG, 1631. 559
The Augsburg Confession of 1530, with Melanchthon's subsequent
explanations, was made the basis of the proceedings, and was discussed
article by article. They agreed essentially on all the doctrines except
the omnipresence of Christ's human nature, the oral manducation of
his body in the eucharist by worthy and unworthy comnmnicants.
The Eeforrned divines were willing, notwithstanding these differences,
to treat the Lutherans as brethren, and to make common cause with
them against the Papists. But the Lutherans were not prepared to
do more than to take this proposal into serious consideration.
The question of election was then also taken up, although it is not
expressly mentioned in the Augsburg Confession. They agreed that
only a portion of the race was actually saved. The Reformed traced
election to the absolute will of God, and reprobation to the unbelief
of men ; the Lutherans (adhering to the happy inconsistency of the
Formula of Concord) brought in God's foreknowledge of the faith of
the elect, but they derived faith itself entirely from God's free elect-
ing grace. The difference was therefore very immaterial, and simply
a matter of logic.
In conclusion, the theologians declared that the conference was in-
tended not to compromise the Churches and sovereigns, but only to
find out whether and to what extent both parties agreed in the
Twenty-eight Articles of the Augsburg Confession, and whether
there was reason to hope for some nearer approach in the future,
whereby the true Church might be strengthened against the Papists.
In the mean time the proceedings of the conference were to be re-
garded as strictly private, and not to be published by either party with-
out the consent of the other. The theologians of the two Churches
were to show each other Christian love, praying that 'the God of
truth and peace grant that we may be one in him, as he is one with
the Son (John xvii. 21). Amen, Amen in the name of Jesus Christ,
Amen.*
The document is not signed by the princes who arranged the con-
ference, but only by the theologians— namely, Drs. von Hoenegg,
Leyser, Hopfner (Lutherans), and Bergius, Crocius, Neuberger (Re-
formed).1
i The proceedings were published by Hoe of Hoenegg, and by Bergius, 1635. See Eterature
in Niemeyer, Proleg. p. Ixxix.
560 THE CREEDS CXF CHRISTENDOM.
The proceedings were characterized by great theological ability and
an excellent Christian temper, and showed a much closer harmony
than was expected. They excited considerable sympathy among the
Reformed at home and abroad. But the Lutheran members were
severely taken to task for favoring syncretism, and in vindicating
themselves they became more uncompromising against Calvinism than
before. The conference was in advance of the spirit of the age, and
left no permanent effect.
THE COLLOQUY OF THORN. A.D. 1645.
The official edition of the Acts : Acta Conventtts Thoruntenste cdelrati a. 1645, etc., Warsaw, 1646 (very
incorrect). The Acts, with the two Protestant Confessions (which were excluded from the official Acts),
in Calovius, Historia Syncretistica (1682), 1686, pp. 199-560. The Reformed Declaratio Th^runiensis, Latin,
in Niemeyer (pp. 669-689) ; German, in Bockel (pp. 865-884).
The Colloquy of Thorn, in West Prussia (Colloquium Thoruniense\
was likewise a well-meant but fruitless union conference in a time of
sectarian intolerance and the suicidal folly of the Thirty- Years' War.
In this case the movement proceeded from the Roman Catholic
king, Wladislaus IV., of Poland (1632-1648). In this country moder-
ate Lutherans, Calvinists, and Moravians had formed a conservative
union in the Consensus of Sendomir (1570), and a treaty of peace
secured equal civil rights to Protestants and Romanists (Pax Dissi-
dentium in 1573). But this peace was denounced by the Pope as a
league of Christ with Belial, and undermined by the Jesuits, who ob-
tained the control of the education of the Polish nobility, and are
to a large extent responsible for the ultimate dismemberment and
ruin of that unfortunate kingdom.
Wladislaus made a patriotic effort to heal the religious discords of
Ms subjects, and invited Romanists and Dissenters (Protestants) to a
charitable colloquy (colloquium earitativum, fratema ooUatio) in the
city of Thorn, which was then under the protection of the King of
Poland (since 1454), and had embraced the Lutheran faith (1557). It
began April 18, 1645, in the town-hall. There were three parties.
9?he twenty-eight Roman deputies, including eight Jesuits, were deter-
mined to defeat the object of peace, and to prevent any concessions
to Protestants. The Reformed had twenty-four delegates, chief among
them the electoral explains John Bergius and Fr. Reichel, of Bran-
denburg and the Mx>r&vian Bishop Anaos Comjejiius. .Ike .Lutheran
§ 70. THE COLLOQUY OF THORN, 1645. 561
deputation consisted of fifteen, afterwards of twenty-eight members ;
the most prominent were Oalovius of Dantzic and Hiilsemann of Wit-
ienberg, the champions of the strictest orthodoxy, and George Calix-
fcus of Helmstadt, the leader of a mild and comprehensive union theol-
ogy.1 The sessions were private (^ plebs penitus arcenda*}. The king's
chancellor. Prince George Ossolinski, presided.
The first business, called ' liquidatio* was to be the preparation of
a correct statement of the doctrinal system of each party. The Eo-
man Catholic Confession, with a list of rejected misrepresentations, was
ready early in September, and read in the second public session, Sept.
16. It was received among the official acts. On the same day the
Reformed Confession was read, tinder the title Declaratio doctrince
ecdesiarum Reformatarum catholics But the Eomanists objected to
the word 'catholic] which they claimed as their monopoly, and to the
antithetical part as being offensive to them, and excluded the docu-
ment from the official acts. The Lutheran Confession was ready the
20th of September, but was even refused a public reading.2
The Protestants sent a deputation to the king, who received them
and their confessions with courtesy and kindness ; but the Eomanists
demanded more alterations than the Protestants were willing to make,
and used every effort to prevent the official publication of heresies.
Unfortunately the dissensions among the Lutherans, and between
them and the Eeformed, strengthened the Eomish party. The Col-
loquy closed Nov. 21, * mutua valedictione et in fraterna caritate]
but without accomplishing its end. Calixtus says : ' The Colloquy was
no colloquy at all, certainly no colloquium caritativum, but vrrita-
tivum? It left the three confessions where they were before, and
added new fuel to the syncretistic controversy in Germany.3 Calo-
vius and Hiilsemann charged Calixtus with aiding the Calvinists in
their confession. The city of Thorn, which spent 50,000 guilders for
1 It took Calixtus nearly three weeks to travel from Helmstadt to Thorn.
* The Latin text in Calovius's Hist syncret. pp. 403-421 ; the German and Latin texts
were separately issued at Leipzig, 1655, and at Dantzic, 1735. See also Scriptafacientia ad
Colloquium Thoruniense ; accessit G. Calixti consideratio et tiriicpiffts, Helmstadt, 1645, and
Calixti Annotationes et animadversiones in Confessionem Reformatorum, Wolfenbiittel, 1655.
* Hence the distich on the Synod of Thorn :
'QwfcZ synodrusf nodus: Pafrum chorus integer t oeger:
Conoentust ventus; Gloria t rtramen. A.menS
562 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
the conference, suffered mncli from the Thirty-Tears' War, also by a
plague, and became the scene of a dreadful massacre of Protestants,
Dec. 7, 1724, stirred up by the Jesuits in revenge for an attack on their
college.
The Declaration of Thorn 1 is one of the most careful statements of
the Reformed Creed, and the only one among the three confessions of
this Colloquy which acquired a practical importance by its adoption
among the three Brandenburg Confessions. It is divided into a gen-
eral part (generalis professio) and a special declaration (specialis de-
claratio). The former acknowledges the canonical Scriptures of the
Old and New Testaments in the original Hebrew and Greek, as the
only perfect rule of faith, containing all that is necessary for our sal-
vation. It adopts, also, in a subordinate sense, as explanatory sum-
maries of Scripture doctrine, the oecumenical Creeds, and doctrinal de-
cisions of the ancient undivided Church in opposition to the trinitarian,
christological, and Pelagian heresies.2 Finally, as regards the contro-
versy with Rome, it accepts the Altered Augsburg Confession and the
Consensus of Sendomir (1570) as correct statements of the Scripture
doctrines, differing in form, but agreeing in essence.
The c Special Declaration3 states the several articles of the Reformed
1 The full tide is 'Professio Doctrines JEcclestarum Reformatarum in Regno Polonia, Magno
Ducatu Lithuania^ annexisque Regni Provinciis, in Conventu Thoruniensi, Anni 1645, ad liqui-
dationem Controversiarum maturandam, exhibita d. 1 Septembris.' First published at Berlin,
1646, under the title * Scripta partis Reformats in Colloquio Thoruniensi, ' etc.
a In the expression of agreement with the ancient Church the Declaration of Thorn is more
explicit than any other Protestant confession, Lutheran or Calvinistic or Anglican. After
saying that the summary of Scripture doctrine is contained in the Apostles' Creed, the Ten
Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, and the Words of Institution of Baptism and the Lord's
Supper, the Declaration proceeds :
'Si quid vero, in hisce Doctrines Christianas capitibus, dubitationis ant controversies de genu-
ine eorum sensu exoriatur, projitemur porro, nos amplecti ceu interpretationem Scripturarum
certain et indubitatam, Symbolum Nicanum et Constantinopolitanum, iisdem plane verbis, qui-
bus in Synodi Tridentinas Sessione tertia, tanquam Principium illud, in quo omnes, quifidem
Ckristi profitentur, necessario conveniunt, et Fundamentum firmum et unicum, contra quod
portce inferorum nunquamprcevalebunt, proponitier.
*(7t« etiam consonare Symbolum, quod dicitur Athanasianum, agnoscimus: nee non JSphe-
sincB primes, et Chalcedonensis Synodi Confessiones: quinetiam, qua Quinta et Sexta Synodi,
Nestorianorum. et Eutychianorum reliquiis opposuere: quceque adversus Pelagianos olim
Milevitana Synodvs et Arausicana secunda ex Scripturis docuere. Quinimo, quicquid primi-
tiva JScclesia ab ipsisvsque Apostolorum temporibus, unanimi deinceps etnotorio consensu, tan-
quam Articulum fidei necessarium, credidit9 docuti, idem nos quoque ex Scripturis credere et
docere profitemur.
'Hoc igitur Fidei nostrcs profession^ tanquam Cknstiani vere Catholici, ab omnibus vete-
ribus et recentibus Hceresibus, quas prisca universalis JScclesia unanimi consensu ex ScripturiA
rqecit atgue damnavit, nos nostrasque JEcclesias segregamus.1
*
§ 71. MINOR GERMAN REFORMED CONFESSIONS. &63
system, both in its agreement with, and in its departure from, the creeds
of Romanists and Lutherans.
The document is signed by a number of noblemen and clergymen
from Poland, Lithuania, and Brandenburg.
§ 71. MINOR GERMAN REFORMED CONFESSIONS.
HEINBIOH HIEPPE: Die Bekenntniss-Schrtften der reformirten Kirchen Deutschlands. Elberfeld, 1860.
(Contains nine confessions of secondary importance, most of which are not found in other collections.)
The remaining Confessions of the Reformed Churches in Germany
have only a local importance, and may be briefly disposed of.
1. THE CONFESSION OF ELECTOR FREDERICK III. OF THE PALATINATE,
1577. — It was his last will and testament, and was published after his
death by his son, John Casimir. It may be regarded as an explanatory
appendix to the Heidelberg Catechism. It is a clear and strong testi-
mony of his catholic and evangelical faith, and contains some whole-
some warnings against the unchristian intolerance of the princes and
theologians of his age.1
2. THE CONFESSION OF ANHALT, or REPETITIO ANHALTINA (i. e., a Repe-
tition of the Augsburg Confession), 1581.2 — It was prepared chiefly by
Wolfgang Amling, Superintendent of Anhalt, and laid before a con-
ference with Hessian divines held at Cassel, March, 1579.
The duchy of Anhalt, on the banks of the Elbe and Saale (formerly
divided into four duchies, called after the principal towns, Anhalt-
Dessau, Anhalt -Zerbst, Anhalt -Bernburg, Anhalt-Cothen, in 1853
united into two, 1863 into one) embraced the Lutheran reformation
in 1534, but during the controversies which led to the Formula Con-
cordise it adhered to Melanchthon, and finally passed over to the
Reformed faith in 1596. Prince John George married a daughter
of Prince Casimir of the Palatinate, and introduced the Heidelberg
Catechism and a simpler form of worship. At a later period (16M)
Lutheranism was partly re-established, but Dessau, Bernburg, and Co-
then remained Reformed.
The ' Anhalt Repetition' can scarcely be numbered among the Re-
1 The German text is given by Heppe, pp. 1-18 ; a Latin translation in the Corpus et Syn-
tagma Confessionum, with a Preface by John Casimir.
9 The German text in Heppe, pp. 19-67, the Latin in TSftemeyer, pp. 612-641. Bockel ex-
cludes it from his collection because it is not strictly Reformed.
564: THE CREEDS 0£ CHBISTENDOM.
formed Confessions. It belongs to the Melanchthonian transition pe-
riod, and represents simply a milder type of Lutheranism in opposi-
tion to the Flacian party. It recognizes, along with the Altered Augs-
burg Confession and the Corpus Doctrine of Melanchthon, the Sinai*
cald Articles and Luther's Catechisms, and professes even the man-
ducatio oralis and the manducatio indignorum.1 This is clearly in-
compatible with the Bef ormed system of doctrine.
3. THE CONFESSION OF NASSAU, 1578, prepared, at the request of
Count John of Nassau-Dillenburg, by the Kev. Christopher Pezel, who
had been expelled from Saxony for Crypto-Calvinisrn. It was adopted
by a general synod of that country, and first printed in 1593. It is
Melanchthonian in the sense of the Altered Augsburg Confession and
the Confession of Saxony, and rejects the doctrine of ubiquity as an
unscriptural innovation and fiction.2
4 THE BEEMEN- CONFESSION (Consensus Ministerii JBremensis), pre-
pared, 1598, by the same Pezel, who in the mean time had removed to
Bremen, and signed by the pastors of that city. It is more decidedl}1
Beformed, and adopts the Calvinistic view of predestination. Among,
the books herein approved and recommended to the study of the pas-
tors are also the Geneva Harmonia Confessionum, the Heidelberg
Catechism, the Decades of Bullinger, and the Institutes of Calvin, as
well as the works of Melanchthon.3
5. THE HESSIAN CONFESSION, adopted by a General Synod at Oassel,
A.D. 1607, and published 1608.4 It treats only of five articles : the Ten
Commandments, the abolition of popish picture idolatry, the Person of
Christ (against ubiquity), the eternal election, and the Lord's Supper
(against the manducatio indignorum). The Heidelberg Catechism
and a modification of Luther's Small Catechism were both used in
Electoral Hesse.5
1 Ebrard (Kirchen- und Dogmengeschiehte, YoL IIL p* 575) is certainly wrong when he says
that the Repetitio Anhahina proves that the Anhalt clergy ^schon damals ganz und gar re-
formirt uber die Person Christi und DAS H, ABENDMAHL dackte.' It expressly asserts in
Art. vii. that even 'indigne viscentes non tpddem nudum aitt communem panem calicemque man-
ducant et bibunt, sed ipsum corpus et sanguineni Domini in Sacramento Cc&ncz manducantes et
bibentes . . . reifiunt corporis et sanguinis Domini.1 See Niemeyer, p. 628, and Heppe, p. £6.
* Heppe, pp. 68-146.
9 Ibid. pp. 147-243.
* Ibid. pp. 244-249.
* Comp. Heppe, Gfeschichte der Hessischen Generalsynoden von 1568-1582, Kassel, 1847,
§ 72. THE BOHEMIAN BRETHREN AND THE WALDENSES. 565
6. THE CONFESSION OF THE HEIDELBERG THEOLOGIANS, of 1607, is an
exposition of what the Reformed Churches of Germany believe, and
what they reject.1
7. THE CATECHISM OF EMDEN, 1554, prepared, after the model of
Calvin's Catechism, by John a Lasko, or Laski (1499-1560), a con-
verted nobleman and reformer of Poland. It was used in the He-
formed Church of East Friesland, where he labored several years. It
was afterwards superseded by the Heidelberg Catechism, which is-
partly based upon it2
IV. THE CONFESSIONS OF BOHEMIA, POLAND, AND
HUNGARY.
§ ^T2. THE BOHEMIAN BRETHREN AND THE WALDENSES.
Literature.
FBANZ PALAOKY (Historiographer of the Kingdom of Bohemia) : Geschichte von Bohmen grdsstentheilt
nach Urkunden und Handschriften. Prag. (1836 sqq.)> 3d ed. 1864 sqq. 5 vols. (the 5th vol. comes down to
1526). The same : Documenta Mag. Joannis Hue, vitam, doctrinam, causam in Constantiensi Concilio actam
. . . illustrantia. Prag. 1869 (mostly from unpublished sources). The same : Die Vorldufer des Hussi*
tenthums in B*hmen. Prag. 1869 (new ed.)« The same : Urkundliche Beitrdye zur Geschichte des Hussiten-
krieges. 1873, 2 vols. Palacky was a descendant of the Bohemian Brethren, and is the best authority
on Bohemian history. He died May 27, 1876.
Jos. ALEX. VON HELFERT: Hus und Hieronymus. Prag. 1853.
ANTON GINT>EI.Y : Bohmen und Mdhren im Zei,tatter der Reformation. Prag. 1857, 1858, 2 vols. (contain-
ing the History of the Bohemian Brethren from 1450-1609). The same : Quellen zur Geschichte der Bohm.
BrMer, in Fontes Rerum Austriacarumt Vol. XIX. Wien, 1859. Gindely is a Roman Catholic, but kindly
disposed to the Bohemian Brethren, and thoroughly at home in their literature.
CHE. AD. PESOHROK : Geschichte der Gegenreformation in Bohmen. Leipzig, 1850, 2d ed. 2 vols.
E. H. GILLBTT (d. 1875, in New York) : Life and Times of John Huss; or, The Bohemian Reformation
of the 18th Century. Boston, 1864, 3d ed. 2 vols. , 3d ed. 1871.
W. BBEGBB,: Joh. Bus und Kaiser Sigmund. Augsb. 1871.
L. KBTJMMEL : Utraquisten und Taboriten. Gotha, 1871.
Fs. VON BEZOLI>: Eonig Sigmund und die Reichskriege gegen die- Husiten. 1872. By the same: Zur
Geschichte des Husitenthums. Munchen, 1874.
JABOBLAV GOLL : QueZfen und Uhtersuchungen zur Geschichte der Bohrnischen Bruder. Frag, 1878 (L),
HUB3 AND THE HUSSITES.
The reformation in the Kingdom of Bohemia (now a political dir
2 vols. The vexed question whether Hessia is Lutheran or Calvinistic has called forth a
large controversial literature, in which the numerous works of this indefatigable investigator
of the early history of German Protestantism are very prominent.
1 Heppe, pp. 250 sqq.
3 Ibid. pp. 294-310. Comp. Bartels, Johannes a Lasco^ in the ninth volume of the valuable
series of Vater und Begrunder der reformirten Kirche (1861), pp. 53 sq.
3 Hus (i. e., Goose) and Hussites (from the Bohemian genitive Susses) is the correct spelling,
followed by Palacky and Gindely, instead of Huss and Husites.
566 THE CEEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
vision of the Austro-Hungarian Empire), began with JOHN Hus and
JEROME OF PRAGUE, who were influenced by the doctrines of Wycliffe,
and who carried with them the greater part of the population, the
Slavic Czechs. They were condemned by the oecumenical Council of
Constance as heretics, and burned at the stake, the former July 6, 1415,
the latter May 30, 1416. But their martyrdom provoked the Husite
wars which would have resulted in the triumph of the Husites, had
not internal divisions broken their strength.
The f ollowers of Hus were, from 1420, divided into two parties, the
conservative CALIXTINES, so called from their zeal for the chalice (calix)
of the laity, or UTRAQUISTS (communio sub utraque specie), and the
radical TABORITES, so named from a steep mountain which their blind
but brave and victorious leader, Ziska (d. 1424), fortified and called
Mount Tabor. The Calixtines accepted the compromise of commun-
ion in both kinds, which the Council of Basle offered to them (1433),
and mostly returned to the Eoman Church. The Taborites rejected
all compromise with the hated papal Antichrist, and demanded a
thorough reformation, but they were defeated by the allied Eomanists
and Calixtines near Prague, 1434, and subdued by George Podiebrad,
1453.
THE BOHEMIAN BRETHREN*.
From this time the Taborites disappeared as a party, but from their
remnants arose, about 1457, a new and a more important sect, the
UNITAS FRATRUM (Jednota IratrsM), as they called themselves, or the
BOHEMIAN BRETHREN.1 They adhered to the rigid discipline of the Ta-
borites, but were free from their fanaticism and violence. They en-
deavored to reproduce, in peaceful retirement from the world, the
simplicity and spirituality of the Apostolic Church as they understood
it They held to the Bohemian version of the Bible revised by Hus2
as their only standard of faith and conduct. They rejected worldly
amusements, oaths, military service, and capital punishment ; they op-
1 This name applies also to the members who emigrated to Moravia, Saxony, and Poland ;
but the name Moravian Brethren does not occur until the 18th century, when Zinzendorf
incorporated into his own society (the Moravians, properly so called) the last survivors of the
Bohemian brotherhood, who had come from Moravia to Saxony. See Gindely, Vol. I. p. 36.
They were also called Waldenses, and in derision Picards (probably the same as Beghards)
and Grubenheimer, Pit-dwellers (because they held divine service in pits and caves).
* Another Bohemian version or revision of the New Testament was made from the Greek by
Blahoslav. a member of the Unitas Ifratrum and the author of a Bohemian grammar (d, 1571).
§ 72. THE BOHEMIAN BRETHREN AND THE WALDENSES. 567
posed the secular power of the clergy, and denounced the Pope of
Rome as Antichrist. At first they received the sacraments from Ca-
lixtine and Romish priests who joined them.
In 1467 they effected an independent organization at a synodieal
meeting held in the village of Lhota, which was attended by about fifty
members, priests and laymen, scholars and peasants, under the lead
of Michael, formerly a Catholic priest. After praying and fasting,
they elected by lot (Acts i. 26) three priests out of their number, and
laid hands on them. Then they were all solemnly rebaptized. But not
satisfied with this independent reconstruction of the Church, they
sought regular ordination from a Waldensian bishop, Stephen of Aus-
tria, who was reported to have been ordained by a Roman bishop in
1434, and who afterwards suffered martyrdom in Vienna. Stephen or-
dained Michael ; Michael ordained Matthias of Kunwald, and then, lay-
ing down his dignity, asked to be ordained afresh by Matthias, who was
the first of the three elected by lot, and significantly bore the name of
the supplementary apostle. This shows the vacillation of the Brethren
between Presbyterianism and Episcopacy, as well as between radical
independency and historical conservatism.1 But they retained, or
meant to retain, an unbroken succession of the episcopate, and trans-
mitted it afterwards to the Moravian Church.2
The Brethren were cruelly persecuted; many were tortured and
burned ; others fled to neighboring Moravia, where for a short season
they were unmolested. In the beginning of the sixteenth century
they numbered in Bohemia about 200,000 members with 400 par-
1 Gindely reports this from the scanty and conflicting sources, and adds the remark (VoL
I. p. 37): e Es zeigt das Schwanken des Gemuths und den Zweifel an die Berechtigung der
gethanen Schritte, doss die Bruder in ikren Schnften gleich nach der Wahl jede Different
zwischen priesterlicher und bischBflicher Wurde verwarfen, mit angstlicher Geuoissenhaftiglceit
aber bei sich die letztere einfuhrten,'
a The last bishop of the old Unitas ITratrum was John Amos Comenius (or Komensky, a
Czech, born in Moravia, 1592, died at Amsterdam, 1671), who acquired great celebrity by his
new method of instruction by pictures and illustrations, and by his Janua Linguarum reser-
rota, and his Orbis pictus. His nephew, IX E. Jablonsky, was elected and ordained bishop
by a Synod of Bohemian Brethren in Poland, 1698, and he ordained David Nitschmann, the
first bishop of the Moravians, 1735. See E. von Schweinitz, The Moravian Episcopate
(Bethlehem, Pa., 1865 ; comp. his art. Moravian Church, in Johnson's Univ. Cyclop. Vol.
HL), and Benham, Origin and Episcopate of the Bohemian Brethren (Lond. 1867). The
Moravian episcopate depends on the Bohemian, and the Bohemian on the Waldensian episco-
pate, which in the thirteenth century did not claim to rest on apostolic succession. Comp.
the quotations in Gieseler, Kirchengesh. Vol. II. Pt, II. pp. 640, 641.
VOL. L— O o
568 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
ishes. They had three printing establishments in 1519, while the Tfo
manists had only one, and the Utraquists two. They made valuable con-
tributions to evangelical hymnology. Their most fruitful author was
Lucas of Prague (d. 1528), who did more for the organization of the
society than its founder Gregor, and wrote over eighty books.1
THE WALDENSES.
Literature.
L The WAIJ>ENSI±:N MSS., mostly in the libraries of Geneva, Cambridge, Dublin, and Strasburg. The
older prints are not reliable. See a description of these MSS. in Herzog, Die romanischen Waldenser,
pp. 46 sqq. The Morland MSS. of Cambridge were brought to light again by Henry Bradshaw, 1862.
It. The accounts of mediaeval Catholic writers : BEUNAKD ABBAS FONTIS CALIDI (Fonte Claude, d. 1193) ;
AI^NTJS BIB INSULTS (d. 1202) ; STEPHANTJS DE BOBBONK (Etienne de Bourbon, d. 1225) ; YVONKT (1275) ;
BAIKEBITTS <1250) ; PSECTDO-RAINERIUS ; MONET A of Cremona ; GUALTKB MAPES, of Oxford.
Roman Catholic historians are apt to confound the Waldenses with the heretical Albigenses and Ca~
thari, and include them in the same condemnation ; while some of the older Protestant historians re-
verse the process to clear the Albigenses of the charge of Manicheism.
HI. Historical works, mostly in the interest of the Waldenses:
J. P. PEBBIN : Histoire des Vaudois. Geneva, 1619. English translation with additions by K. Baird
and S. Miller. Philadelphia, 184T.
PIBUBB GILLES: Histoire eccltsiastigue des igltees r^rm£e*~-wOrtfais appetites eglises Vaudoises. Gf
neva, 1655.
JBAN LEGEB (pastor and moderator of the Waldensian churches, afterwards of a Walloon church at
Leyden) : Histoire generate des eglises evangeliques des vallees de Ptenwnt ou Vaudoises. Leyden, 1669,
2 vole. fol. A German translation by Von Schweinitz. Breslau, 1750.
S. MOBULND : History of the Evangelical Churches of the VaUeys of Piedmont. London, 1658. Morland
was sent by Cromwell to Piedmont; he brought back a number of Waldensian MSS., and deposited
them in Cambridge.
JAOQUKS BREZ (Waldensian) : Histoire des Vaudois. Paris, Lausanne, and Utrecht, 1796.
S. R. M AITLAND : Tracts and Documents illustrative of the History of the Doctrines and Rites of the Avt
dent Albigenses and Waldenses. London, 1832.
ANT. MONASTIEB : Histoire de Veglise Vaudoise. Paris and Toulouse, 1847, 2 vols.
ALEXIS MTJSTON (Waldensian) : Histoire des raudois. Paris, 1834. The same : L'lsrael des Alpes, pr*>
miere histoire complete des Vaudois* Paris, 1S51, 4 vols.
CHB. IT. HAHN : Qeschichte der Waldenser. Stuttgart, 1847. (The second volume of his learned Geschichte
der Ketz&r im Mittelalter.) Contains many valuable documents.
A. W. DIBOKHOFF: Die Waldenser im Mittelalter. Gottingen, 1851. Marks an epoch in the critical sift-
ing of the documents, but is too negative, and unjust to the Waldenses.
HBB200 ; Die romanisehen Waldenser. Halle, 1858. Also his valuable art. Waldenser in his Beal-Encty-
Jdop. VoL XVII. pp. 502 sqq. Based upon a careful examination of the Waldensian MSS.
C. A. G. VON ZEZSOBWITZ: Die Katechismen der Waldenser und Bohmischen BrMer als Documente ihres
uoechselseitigen Lehraustausches. Kritische Textausgabe, etc. Erlangen, 1863. Compare his System der
cJtrisO. JcirchL Katechetik, Leipz. 1863, Vol. I. pp. 548 sqq.
PALAOKY : VerhaUniss der Waldenser zu den bdhmischen Secten. Frag, 1869. (38 pp.)
Emnraro DV ScoerprBiNrrz: The Catechism of the Bohemian Brethren. Translated from the Old German.
Bethlehem, Pa., 1869.
G. LEOHLBB: Johann von WMlif und die Vorgeschichte der Reformation. Leipz. 1873, Vol. I. pp. 46-63.
F. WACHCNMANN: Waldenser, in Schmidt's EncyUop. des gesammten Erziehungs- und Uhterrichtswesenst
VoL X. (1875), pp. 259-274.
Soon after their organization the Brethren came into friendly con-
tact with the older and like-minded WALDENSES (YAUDOIS), so called
from their founder, Peter Waldo, or Waldus, a lay evangelist of Lyons
(about 1170), who gave his rich possessions to the poor. They called
1 Gindely, Vol. I. p. 200, &a& Von Zezschwitz, Lukas von Prag, in Herzog's Encyklop.,
Supplem. Vol. XX. pp. 23 sqq., 31. Gindely, however, places no high estimate on the writ-
ings of Lucas, and charges him with great obscurity. They are mostly extant in manuscript
§ 72. THE BOHEMIAN BRETHREN AND THE WALDENSES. 569
themselves originally the Poor of Lyons, who by voluntary poverty and
celibacy aimed at evangelical perfection.1 The early confessional and
catechetical books of the two sects are closely connected. The Breth-
ren derived, as already noted, their episcopate from the Waldenses,
and in 1497 they sent two delegates, Lucas of Prague and Thomas
of Landskron (Germanus), to France and Italy, who reported that the
Waldenses in those countries were far advanced in the knowledge of
Scripture truth, while elsewhere they found nothing but false doctrine,
superstition, loose discipline, and corrupt morals.2 On the other hand,
many of the exiled Waldenses, who spread in every direction,3 emi-
grated to Bohemia, attracted by the religious commotions of that
country, and coalesced with the Brethren into one community.
The Bohemian Brethren and the Waldenses made a near approach to
evangelical Protestantism, and are the only mediaeval sects which have
maintained their existence to this day. But we must distinguish be-
tween their position before and their position after the Reformation,
which marks an important epoch in their creed. Much confusion (as
Gieseler observes) has been introduced into their history both by friend
and foe.
The Waldenses formed at first no separate church, but an ecclesiola
in ecclesia, a pious lay community of Bible-readers. They were well-
versed in Scripture, and maintained its supremacy over the traditions
of men ; they preached the gospel to the poor, allowing women also to
preach ; and gradually rejected the papal hierarchy, purgatory, prayers
for the dead, the worship of saints and relics, the mass, transubstantia-
tion, the oath, and capital punishment. Being excommunicated by
Lucius III. (1184) and other popes as schismatics and heretics, they
seceded and became a persecuted church. They had a clergy of their
own with bishops, priests, and deacons. The origin and succession of
1 The Dominican Stephen of Borbone says : * Incepit hcec secta circa annum ab incarna-
tions Domini 1170 . . . WALDENSES dicti sunt a primo huius hasresis auctore, qui nominates
fuit WaJdensis. Dicuntur etiam Pauperes de Lugduno quia ibi inceperunt in professions
paupertatis? They were also called Leonistce, from Leona, Lyons ; Sabatati, from their
wooden sandals (sabot) ; and Humiliati, from their humility.
a Joachim Camerarius, in his Historica narratio de Fratrum orthod. ecclesiis in Bohemia
(ed. by his grandson, Heidelb. 1605), gives a full account of two deputations of the Brethren
to the Waldenses, one in 1467, and the other in 1497. See Herzog, pp. 290 sqq., and Gin-
dely, Vol. I. pp. 88 sq.
3 Pseudo-Rainerius : 'fere nulla est terra, in qua hcec secta non sit.9
570 THE CREEDS OF CHEISTENDOM.
their orders are involved in obscurity. They survived the fierce perse-
cutions in France and the valleys of Piedmont, and extended their in-
fluence through emigrants to other countries, kindling a zeal for the
study of the Scriptures in the vernacular, and strengthening the op-
position to the papal Church. When they heard the glad tidings of
the Eef ormation, they sent a deputation— Morel and Masson— to CEco-
lampadius, Bucer, and other reformers, in 1530, and derived from them
clearer views of the distinction between canonical and apocryphal
books, justification by faith, election and free-will, the marriage of
the clergy, and the nature and number of sacraments. At a synod
in the valley of Angrogne, Sept. 12-18, 1532, which was attended also
by Farel and two other Reformed preachers of French Switzerland,
the Reformation was adopted by a large majority, and subsequently
carried out. Since that time the "Waldenses became and remained a
regular branch of the Reformed Church.1
In the course of time the consciousness of this change was obscured,
and in their polemic zeal against Romanism they traced the Reformed
doctrines to their fathers, who certainly prepared the way for them.
Their manuscripts were interpolated and assigned to a much earlier
date.2 Some of their historians even constructed an imaginary Wal-
densian succession of pure evangelical catholicity up to the apostolic
age, in opposition to the papal succession of an apostate pseudo-catho-
licity, which they dated from the fictitious donation of Constantine
to Pope Sylvester and the consequent secularization of the Church.
This is the Protestant counterpart of the Romish caricatures of the
Reformation, and deserves equal condemnation in the name of com-
mon honesty and historical truth.
A critical examination and comparison of the Waldensian manu-
scripts and the reports of the conferences with the Reformers have
exposed these literary frauds, and produced at first a reaction against
the Waldenses and in favor of the Bohemian Brethren, from whom
some of their books were supposed to be derived. But on still further
examination it appears that there was a mutual exchange of views and
writings between the two, and that the assertions of some later Bo-
1 Herzog, pp. 378 sqq,
8 Leger dates, without any proof, the Nobla Leyczon and the Waldensian Catechism from
the year 1100; the Confession of Faith, the tracts on Purgatory and the Invocation of
Saints, from 1120 ; the book on Antichrist from 1126.
§ 72. THE BOHEMIAN BEETHREN AND THE WALDENSES. 571
hemian Brethren concerning their independence are as little to be
trusted and as clearly unfounded as the claims of the Waldenses.
Their oldest writings, from the twelfth to the fourteenth century, were
popular translations of the Scriptures and extracts from the fathers,
followed by more extended works, such as La Nobla Leyczon^ (i. e.,
lectio, a didactic poem on Bible history and an exhortation to repent-
ance), the Cantioa, an allegorical exposition, or application rather, of
the Song of Songs, and several poems and ascetic tracts. The sec-
ond class embraces the writings of the fifteenth century (on Purga-
tory, the Invocation of Saints, and the Sacraments), which are more
or less dependent on the Confessio Tdboritarum (1433), and other
Hussite documents.2 The third class was not composed or put into its
present shape till after the adoption of the Reformation in 1532. Their
chief confession is based upon the Gallican (1559), and was issued dur-
ing the fearful massacre of 1655.3
The indebtedness <*L \ne Waldenses to the Reformation for a purer
creed does not deprive them of a claim to the deep sympathy of all
Protestant Christians, which in the period of their fiercest persecu-
tion in Piedmont (1655) provoked the threat of Cromwell to make
the thunder of English cannon resound in the castle of St Angelo,
and inspired the sublime sonnet of Milton —
* Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered saints, whose bones
Lie scattered on the Alpine mountains cold ;
Even them who kept thy truth so pure of old,
When all our fathers worshiped stocks and stones.
Forget not : in thy hook record their groans,
Who were thy sheep, and in their ancient fold
Slain hy the hloody Piedmontese, that rolled
Mother with infant down the rocks. Their moans
The vales redoubled to the hills, and they
To heaven. Their martyred blood and ashes sow
O'er all the Italian fields, where still doth sway
The triple tyrant; that from these may grow
A hundredfold, who having learnt thy way
Early may fly the Babylonian woe.'
1 Given in the original by Herzog, pp. 444-457, from the Geneva MS., with the variations
of the Dublin text. Herzog assigns it to the year 1400. Ebrard, Ueber das Alter der
Nobla Leyczon, in the Zeitschrift fur Ustor. Theologie, 1864, and in his Kirchengesch. Vol.
H. p. 193, traces it to the beginning of the thirteenth century, and defends the date of the
Geneva MS., that the work was written fully eleven hundred years after St. John wrote, 'It
is the last time' (1 John ii. 18), i. e., about 1200.
> See the comparison in Dieckhoff, pp. 377 sqq. 3 See Vol. III. pp. 757 sqq.
572 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
The last lines sound like a prophecy; for since the day of liberty
dawned on Italy (in 1848), that venerable martyr church has, from its
mountain retreats in Piedmont, with youthful vigor established mis-
sions in nearly all the cities of the peninsula.
THE WALDENSIAJsT CATECHISM (1489) AND THE BOHEMIAN CATECHISM (1521).
The doctrinal affinity of the Waldenses and the Bohemian Brethren
appears especially in their Catechisms, which are the most important
of all their writings before the Reformation, and which prove their
zeal for Christian education on the basis of the Scriptures. They bear
such a striking resemblance to each other that the one must be in part
a copy from the other. The Waldensian Catechism has a better claim
to originality, and, although not nearly as old as was formerly sup-
posed,1 must have been written before 1500 ; while the Bohemian, in
the form in which it was presented to Luther, first appeared in print
in 1521 or 1522, and was probably the work of Lucas of Prague
(d. 1528), who had visited the Waldenses in Italy and France (1489).
But both rest probably on older sources. Palacky brought to light
(1869) a similar Catechism, which he derives from Hus before 1414.2
The Waldeiisiau Catechism, called 'The Smaller Questions/3 in-
tended for children, is a remarkable production for an age of prevail-
ing popular superstition and ignorance. It consists of fifty-seven ques-
1 iLeger, Monastier, and Hahn trace it to the beginning of the twelfth century.
2 Dieckhoff (pp. 98-115), from an imperfect knowledge of the Waldensian Catechism (as
given by Perrin and Leger), maintained the priority of the Bohemian Catechism, and charged
the Waldenses with gross plagiarism. Dr. Herzog (pp. 324 sq.) inclined to the same opinion,
hut with some qualification, and first edited the original text of the Waldensian Catechism
from the Dublin MtSS. in the Romance language (pp. 438-444). Since then Prof. Von Zez-
schwitz, of Erlangen, has published (1863) both Catechisms in their authentic form, with an
elaborate argument for the priority of the Waldensian from internal evidence and from its
affinity with other undoubted Waldensian documents. Ebrard (Vol. II. p. 491) assents to
this view, and says : * The Waldensian Catechism is thoroughly and characteristically Wal-
densian.' But Palacky traces both to a Bohemian Catechism (of about 4 pages) which he
found in the imperial library of Vienna, and published, with a Latin version, in his Documenta
relating to Hus (pp. 703, 708). The authorship of Hus, however, is a mere conjecture (lcuius
autor Hus esse videtvr*). The resemblance extends only to a few questions, and does not
settle the point of priority ; for Palacky himself admits that the Waldenses were in Prague
as early as 1408, and known to Hus. k The Hussites/ he says (Das Verhaltniss der Waldenser,
etc., p. 20), were both disciples and teachers of the Waldenses, but more the latter than the
former. '
3 Las interrogations menors. The more extensive work on Antichrist was likewise arranged
in questions and answers*
§ 72. THE BOHEMIAN fiKETH&Etf AND THE WALDENBE& 573
tions by the teacher (lo barba, i. e., uncle), and as many answers by the
pupil (Penfanf). It embodies the Apostles' Creed, the Lord's Prayer,
and the Ten Commandments, and is divided into three divisions —
Faith (Ques. 6), Hope (Ques. 32), and Love (Ques. 47). This division
was suggested by St. Paul (1 Cor. xiii. 13) and Augustine (Enchi-
ridion), and is followed also in the Greek Catechism of Mogila and the
Eussian Catechism of Philaret. "Under the head of Faith we have a
practical exposition of the Apostles' Creed and the Ten Command-
ments, showing their subjective bearing on a living faith. In the
Second Part (Ques. 32), Love is defined to be a gift of the Holy
Spirit and an intimate union of the human will with the divine will.
In the Third Part (Ques. 48), Hope is defined to be a certain expecta-
tion of grace and future glory. The Catechism is directed against the
idolatry and superstition of the anti-Christian Church, but the oppo-
sition is indirect and moderate. The characteristic Waldensian feat-
ures are the distinction between a living and a dead faith (Ques. 8) ;
the six evangelical commandments (Ques. 21) ; the seven gifts of the
Holy Spirit (Ques. 23) ; the distinction between the true or essential
(invisible) Church (la gleisa de la part de la substancid), which con-
sists of all the elect of God in Christ, known only to him, and the out-
ward or institutional (visible) church (de la part de li menisteri), i. e.,
the ministers and the people subject to them (Ques. 35) ; and the rigid
exposition of flie second commandment against all forms of idolatry
(Ques. 29). Of the sacraments it is said (Ques. 46) : ' Two are abso-
lutely necessary for all; the rest are less necessary.' This clearly in-
dicates that the Catechism was written before the Reformation period,
when the Waldenses rejected all but two sacraments.
The Bohemian Catechism is longer, having seventy-five questions
and answers. It follows the Waldensian in the general arrangement
and first part, and introduces also (like the Greek catechisms) the
Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount (Ques. 31) ; it has more
to say of idolatry, the worship of Mary, the saints and martyrs, and
especially on the Lord's Supper ; but these additions lack perspicuity,
and are too long for the use of children.
The following specimen will give an idea of these Catechisms, and
the relation they sustain to each other and to the Catechism ascribed
to Hus :
574
THE CBEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
THE WAUDENSIAST CATE-
CHISM.
Las interrogations menors
1. Si tu fosses demand
qui sies-tu ? Respont :
Di* To soy creatura cU
Itio radonal e mortal.
2. Dio perque te ha cre&
2H. Afin que yo conoiss
lui meseyme e cola e haven
la, soa gratia meseyme sit
salva.
3. En que ista la to
salu?
Di. Shi treB vertus sub
stantials do necessitd pertt
nmt a salu.
4. Quals son aquellas ?
Di, F&, speranesa e ca-
ritd.
5. Per que cosa provare
aiczo?
IH. Uapostol soriv. 1
Cor. xiii. : aquestas cosas
permanon, /£, sperancsa
carted.
6. [Qua! es la prumiera
vertu substantial f
Di. La, fe. Oar Vapostol
di: non yombla cosa es
placzer a Dio sen&a 2a fe
Mas a I'appropiant a Dio
comen creyre, car el es e
serb reguiardonador de li
cresent en si.]
7. Qual cosa es la f& ?
Di. Segond I'apostol Heb.
xi. es subsistencia de las co-
sas de sperar e argument de
las non wpparefasent*
THE WALDENSIAN GATE
Translated.
1. y fhou art asked, Wh
art tbou f Answer :
I am a creature of God
rational and mortal.
2. For what end Tias Bo
made youf
That I may know an*
serve him, and be save'
by his grace.
3. On what rests thy sal
vation f
On three fundamental
virtues, which are neces
sary to salvation.
4. Which are ih&yf
Faith, Hope, and Love.
5. Sbw do you prow thief
The Apostle writes, 1
'or. xiii., 'Now abideth
faith, hope, love, these
;hree ; but the greatest of
these is love.'
6. Which is the first fun-
damental virtue?
Faith; for the Apostle
says, *It is impossible to
)lease God without faith
or he that cometh to God
must believe that he is, and
hat he is a rewarder of
them that diligently seek
him [Heb. xi 6].
7. What isfoMhf
According to the Apos-
le, Heb. xi, faith is the
ubstance of things hoped
or, the evidence of things
ot seen.3
THE BOHEMIAN CATE-
CHISM.
(Von Zezschwitz, p. 41.)
1. Was listuf Ant-
wort:
A. Bin vemunfffcige
schopfung Gottes vnd ein
totliche.
5*. Warumb leschuff dich
Gott*
A. Das ich in solt ken-
nen und liephaben vnd
habende die liebe gottes
das ich selig wurdt.
3. Waraujf steht dein se-
A. Auff dreyen g6ttlich-
en tugenden.
4. Wekhe seintsf
A. Der glaub, die lieb,
die hofaung.
5. Sewer das.
A. S. Paul' spricht, ytz-
undt bleyben vns disze drey
tugendt, der glaub, die lieb
vnd die hofhung, vnd das
grost ausz den ist die lieb.
6. Welches ist die erst
A. Der glaub.
7. Sewer das.
A. S. Paul' sagt zu den
uden, es ist vnmuglich
hott zugefallen on den glau-
en, dann d'zuuhenen2 will
2u Gott, der musz gelauben
as Gott sey, auch das er
in beloner sey der die in
uchen.*
1 That is, Disdpulus. In other copies, D enfant. « That is, hinzunahen.
3 Has begins with Qnes. 7 (Quid est fides? Respondet S. Paulas mEp. adEebr., etc.), and
giv-s the substance of Ques. 6, bat omits Qaes. 1-5, and has no trace of a threefold division.
§ 72. THE BOHEMIAN BEETHEEN AND THE WALDENSES. $75
8. Be quanta maniera es
la ft?1
Di. De doas manieras, ceo
& viva e morta.
[Hus (third Qaes.): Duple* art
fides, altera viva, altera mortua.]
9. Qual cosa es f & viva ?
Di. Lo es aguella, la-
gual obra per caritd, testi-
ficant Vapostol Gal. v. ; [ceo
es Vobservancza de li co-
mandament de Dio. Fe
'viva es creyre en Dio, ceo es
amor luy meseyme e gar-
dar li seo comandament.}
10. Qual cosa es fe morta ?
Di. Segond Sanct Jaques,
la f&, sHlh non ha olras, es
morta en si meseyme; e de-
reco, la fe es odosa sencsa
las obras. 0 fe morta es
creire esser Dio^ creyre a
Dio, creyre de Dw, e non
creire en Dio.*
11. De laqual ffe sies-tu 3
Di. De la vera fb catho-
Uca e apostolical
12. Qual es aquella?
Di. Lo es aguella^ la qual
al consdfi de li apostol es
departid en docze articles.
13. Qual es aquella?
Di. To creo en Dio lo
payre tot poissent.
[NowfoUows the Apostles1 Creed
in fall.}
8. How many Jdnds of
faith are there f1
Two kinds, a living faith
and a dead faith.
9. What is tiving faith f
It is faith active in love
(as the Apostle testifies,
Gal. v. 6), that is, by keep-
ing God's commandments.
Living faith is to believe
in God, that is, to love him
and to keep his command-
ments.
10. What is dead faith?
According to St. James,
faith which has no works
is dead in itself; faith is
idle without works. Or
dead faith is to believe that
God is, to believe about
God, of God, but not to be-
lieve in God.a
11. What is your faith?
The true catholic and
apostolic faith.3
12. Which is that*
It is the one which at
the Council of the Apostles
was divided into twelve
articles.*
IB. Which is it f \
I believe in God the Fa-
ther Almighty, etc.
8. Was ist der glaub?
A. S. Paulus sagt, der
glaub ist ein grundfest der
ding welcher man hat zu-
versicht, vnd ein bewerung
der vnsichtigen.
9. Welches gtaubens ttstuf
A. Des gemainen christ-
enlichen.
10. Welches ist der?
A. Ich gelaub in Gott
vatter almechtigen, etc.
[The Apostles1 Creed in fiilL]
11. Welcher witerscliaid
ist diser glaube?
A. Das ein glaub ist le-
bendig, der ander tod.
12. Was ist der tod glau-
len?
A. Es ist zu glauben Gott
denherrn zu sein, Gott dem
herren, vnd von Gott dem
herrn, aber nicht in Gott
den herrn.3
13. Was ist der Mmdig
gkuuben?
AL. Es ist zu glaubn in
Gott den vater, den sun,
den heylig geyst.
1 The Waldensian Catechism begins with the subjective faith, the Bohemian Catechism
(Ques. 10) with tlie objective faith, as laid down in the Creed. Hus agrees with the former.
a The distinction between credere Deum, credere Deo, and credere in Deum often occurs in
the writings of Hus and in the Catechism ascribed to him (Palacky, p. 710).
3 This is fuller than 'the common Christian faith' in the Bohemian Catechism (Ques. 9).
* According to the mediaeval tradition. Hus puts the names of the apostles before each
article, and adds the damnatory clause of the Athanasian Creed.
576 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
§ 73. THE BOHEMIAN CONFESSIONS AFTER THE REFORMATION. A.D. 1535
AND 1575.
THE REFORMATION AND COUNTER-REFORMATION IN BOHEMIA.
Comp. the wort of PSSOHBOK, quoted p. 565 ; and RBUSS : La Destruction du Protestantteme en Boftlvne.
Strasburg, 186T.
The Reformation rekindled the fire of the Husite movement, and
made rapid progress within and without the Catholic Church. The
Bohemian Brethren sent, from 1520, several delegations to Wittenberg
to confer with Luther. They received new light in doctrine, but pain-
fully missed discipline in the churches of Germany. Luther was at
first displeased with their figurative theory of the Lord's Supper, their
views of justification, and the celibacy of the clergy, and induced
them to conform them to his teaching, but afterwards he treated them
with a degree of indulgence and forbearance that contrasts favora-
bly with his uncompromising antagonism to the Zwinglians. Never-
theless, the Bohemian Brethren, like the Waldenses, ultimately passed
in a body to the Reformed communion, with which they had more
sympathy in matters of doctrine and discipline.1 Besides them we find
in Bohemia, after the Reformation, three Protestant parties, Utraquists,
Lutherans, and Calvinists.
There was at one time, during the reign of Maximilian II., a fair
prospect of the conversion of the whole Bohemian nation, as also of
the German provinces of Austria, to Protestantism ; but before the work
was consolidated, the Jesuits, backed by the whole power of the Haps-
burg dynasty, inaugurated a counter-reformation and a series of cruel
persecutions which crushed the evangelical faith, and turned that king-
dom into a second Spain. The bloody drama of the Thirty-Tears' War
began at Prague (1618). Emperor Ferdinand II. (1619-1637), a fanat-
ical pupil of the Jesuits, fulfilled his terrible vow to exterminate heresy
by all possible means, though he should have to reign over a desert.
The execution of twenty-seven of the most distinguished Protestants,
in June, 1621, was the signal for this war of extermination. The rich-
Bst families were deprived of their property. Protestant worship was
1 They wrote afterwards to Beza (Dec. 3, 1575): 'Lutherus nostra sic fuit interpretatus,
quasi ipsius sententios sint consentanea, sua quidem ille culpa, non nostra.' Zezschwitz, p. 153 ;
Ebrard, Vol. HI. p. 400. They had sent a deputation to Bucer and Calvin at Strasburg in
1540, who were well received.
§ 73. THE BOHEMIAN CONFESSIONS AFTER THE REFORMATION. 577
forbidden. Protestant churches, schools, and hospitals were razed to
the ground, or turned into Jesuit churches and colleges. All Protest-
ant preachers, professors, and school-teachers were ordered, in 1624, to
leave the country within a week, under pain of death. Bohemian and
German Bibles and all Bohemian works published after 1414, being
suspected of heresy, were destroyed in immense quantities on market-
places and beneath the gallows. One Jesuit, Anton Koniasch (1637)
boasted that he had burned over 60,000 books. Thus the whole Czech
literature and civilization was overwhelmed with ruin, and ignorance
as dark as midnight spread over the land.1 Protestants were forbidden
the rights of citizens ; they could not carry on a trade, nor contract
marriage, nor make a will. Even light and air were denied them.
' More than thirty thousand Bohemian families, and among them five
hundred belonging to the aristocracy, went into banishment. Exiled
Bohemians were to be found in every country of Europe, and were not
wanting in any of the armies that fought against Austria. Those who
could or would not emigrate held to their faith in secret. Against
them dragonades were employed. Detachments of soldiers were sent
into the various districts to torment the heretics till they were con-
verted. The "Converters" (Seligmacher) went thus throughout all
Bohemia, plundering and murdering. ... A desert was created; the
land was crushed for a generation. Before the war Bohemia had
4,000,000 inhabitants, and in 1648 there were but 700,000 or 800,000.
These figures appear preposterous, but they are certified by Bohemian
historians.' 2
1 See, on this wholesale destruction of hooks, Pescheck's Geschichte der Gegenreformation
in 138hmen,Vol. II. pp. 93 sqq. Bohemian works published from 1414 to 1635 are exceed-
ingly rare, or are to be found only outside of Bohemia in the libraries at Herrnhut, Dresden,
and Leipzig.
a Heusser, The Period of the Reformation, English translation, New York, 187-4, p. 426.
Dr. Dollinger, in his concluding address at the Bonn Union Conference in August, 1875,
speaking of the suppression of the Reformation in Austria, made the following remarks :
tNach rSmischer Lehre ist eine katholische Regierung verpjlichtet, die Andersglaubigen zu
unter-drucken. Die Papste kaben die Habsburger durch die Jesuiten stets zur Befolgung dieser
Lehre angehalten. In der zweiten Halfte des sechszehnten Jahrhunderts war die Sevdlkerung
in einigen uberwiegend deutschen Erbstaaten fast zu neun Zehntel protestantisch. Durch das
Systerti der JZwangsbekehrung und der Austreibung der Protestanten wurde am Ende des 1 6.
Jahrhunderts und tm 17. der romische Katholicismus wieder herrschend. Die wenigen Schrift-
steller, wekhe Oesterreich im 17 ten Jahrhundert hatte, klagen einmuthig iiber den Schaden,
den die Protestanten-Austreibung dem Wohlstand Oesterreichs oebracht. Man darf sagen,
&$ m&chi sich noch heute Juhlbar, dass damah der be&e TAeil dw.stadtischen BevBlkerung ver-
S78 THE CEEEDS OS1 CHRISTENDOM.
The exiled Bohemian Brethren became the nucleus of the Moravian
Brotherhood (1722), and in this noble little Church, so distinguished f 01
its missionary zeal, they continue to this day. Their last and worthy
Bishop, Amos Oomenius, died an exile in Holland, 1671, with the hope
of the future revival of his persecuted Church, which was fulfilled
through the labors of Count Zinzendorf. But even in Bohemia Prot-
estantism could not be utterly annihilated. It began again to raise
its feeble head when Emperor Joseph II. issued the Edict of Tolera-
tion (1781). The recent revival of Czech patriotism and literature
came to its aid. The fifth centenary of the birth of Hus was cele-
brated at Prague, 1869, and Ms works and letters were published.
In 1875 there were forty-six Reformed congregations in Bohemia and
twenty-two in Moravia. The number of Lutheran congregations is
smaller, and they belong almost entirely to the German part of the
jopulation.
THE BOHEMIAN CONFESSION OF 1535.
The Latin text in the Corpus et Syntagma Conf., and in Nonona, pp. 771-S1S ; the German text in
BOOKED pp. 780-830.
The Bohemian Brethren surpass all Churches in the number of
their confessions of faith, which amount to no less than thirty-four
from 1467 to 1671, in the Bohemian, Latin, and German languages.1
But they were all superseded by two, respectively called the First and
the Second Bohemian Confessions.
The first of these confessions was prepared, after the example of
the Lutherans at the Diet of Augsburg, in proof of their orthodoxy,
signed by the noblemen belonging to the Unitas, and laid by a dep-
utation before King Ferdinand at Vienna, Bor. 14, 1535, who prom-
trieben wurde. Eine grosse geistige Versumpfung ist die Folge der engen Verbindung der
Habsfaurger Dynastie mit der Ctarie gewesen. Ich sage : der HabsbvrgiscJien Dynastie ; die
jetzige Dynastie ist die lothringische, aus welcher ganz andere Regenten h&rvorgegangen sind.
Ikr gehSrt Joseph II. an, aber avch die andern Kaiser dieser Dynastie hdben nicht ihre Unter-
thanen um der Religion willen vnterdrftckt. Oesterreich leidet noch jetzt an den schlimmen
Wolgen fruherer Missregierungen, aber es ist ein Stoat, der noch eine Zukunft hat, und sein
neves JSmporbluhen ist von grosser Wlchtigkeit jfur Europa. Wenn wir den Satz des fferrn:
an ihren Fruchten sollt ihr sie erkennen, auf das Papalsystem anwenden, so kSnnen wir nur
ein hartes Vrtheil fiber dasselbe fallen, jbas jetzige Verhalten des romischen Stuhles zeigt
aber, doss er aus der WeltgescJdchte nichts gelernt hat, doss sie ihm ein mit sieben Siegeln ver-
schlossenes Bitch ist.9
1 G-indely enumerates them in Fontes, etc., pp. 453 sqq. Comp. Zezschwitz, in Herzog'a
faal-Encykhp. VoL XX. p. 31.
§ 73. THE BOHEMIAN CONFESSIONS AFTER THE EEFORMATION. 57J
ised to take it into consideration.1 It was written in Latin by an
unknown author, probably by John Augusta, Senior of the Brethren,
and, after the death of Lucas of Prague, their most influential leader
(d. 1572), and with his aid it was translated into German.2
The confession consists of a long apologetic preface against the
charges of heresy and immorality, and of twenty articles. It closely
resembles in form and contents the Augsburg Confession. In Art.
XII., on Baptism, it is stated that the Brethren had formerly rebap-
tized converts, but that they had given up this practice as useless.
Infant baptism is acknowledged (Matt. xix. 14). The doctrine of the
Lord's Supper (Art. XIII.) is accommodated to the Lutheran theory,
though framed somewhat vaguely.3
The Bohemians sent the confession with a deputation to the Re-
formers at Wittenberg (1536). Luther disapproved the articles on cel-
ibacy and justification, but after the Brethren had made some correc-
tions he published the document, at their request and expense, in 1538,
with a favorable preface. In later editions the Bohemians made many
THE SECOND BOHEMIAN CONFESSION. A.D. 1575.
The Latin text in NIEMEYEB, pp. 819-851 ; the German text in BOCXEL, pp. 827-849.
The historical notices I have chiefly derived from PESOHECK'S Geschichte der Gegenreformation in
Bohmen, 2d ed. Vol. L pp. 103 sqq., and from GINDELY'S GeachicJite der JSohmischen Bruder, Vol. IL
pp. 141 sqq.
The mild and liberal Emperor Maximilian II. (1564-1576) was
kindly disposed towards his Protestant subjects, and had a certain
degree of sympathy with their creed. While holding a diet at Prague
he allowed the non-Catholic Bohemians to compose a united confes-
sion of their faith. The Utraquists, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Bo-
hemian Brethren laid aside their disputes and agreed upon a mod-
erate doctrinal statement, which is more particularly called the Bo-
1 Confessio Fidei ac Retigionis, Baronum ac Nobilium Regni Bohemias, serenissimo ac in-
victissimo Romanorumt Bohemia, etc., Regi9 Vienna Austria, sub anno Domini 1535 oblata.'
a So Gindely, Vol. I. p. 233, 238. Niemeyer (Proleg. p. Ixxxvi.) asserts : * Prodiit primum
lingua Bohemica, deinde Latine reddita Vit&mbergoz publiri juris facta est.' But Gindely is
a much better authority in Bohemian matters.
3 'Decent etiam, guod his Christi verois, quibus ipse panem corpus suum, et vinwn spetiatim
sanguinem suum esse pronunciat, nemo de suo guidquam affingat, admisceat aut detrahat, sed
simpliciter his Christi verbis, neque ad dexteram neque ad sinistram dedinando credat,'
* See Niemeyer, Proleg. p. Ixxxvii,
580 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
HEMIAN CONFESSION.1 It was prepared in the Bohemian language by
two divines— Dr. Paul Pressius and M. Krispin2— and adopted with
some changes by the Diet of Prague. It was presented to Maximilian,
May 17, 1575. He gave the delegates the verbal promise of protection
in their faith and worship. It was afterwards presented to Maxi-
milian's son and successor, Rudolph II., 1608, who, under the polit-
ical pressure of the times, in an imperial letter, or charter, granted
the Protestant Bohemians equal rights with the Roman Catholics, a
separate consistory at Prague, and the control of the university (1609).
But these concessions were of short duration. Emperor Matthias vio-
lated the compact, and Ferdinand II. annulled it by his Edict of Res-
titution (1629), which gave the Romanists full power to suppress Prot-
estantism.
The Second Bohemian Confession consists of an address to Maxi-
milian II. and twenty-five articles on the holy Scriptures, on God, the
Holy Trinity, the fall and original sin, free-will, the law, justification,
faith and good works, the Church, the sacraments, etc. It is in essen-
tial agreement with the Augsburg Confession and the older Bohemian
Confession. The doctrine of the Lord's Supper is conformed to the
later Melanchthonian view. A German translation was transmitted to
the divines at Wittenberg, and approved by them Nov. 3, 1575. A
Latin translation appeared in 1619.
1 ' Confessio Bohemica, hoc est, Confessio sanctce et Christiance fidei, omnium trium Ordinum
Regni Bohemias, Corpus et Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi in Coma, sub utraque specie
actipientium,' etc.
2 A new chapter in the history of Bohemia — now called Czechoslovakia — and of the
followers of Huss was opened with the war, 1914. After nearly 400 years of subjection
to Austria, the country gained its freedom and was made a republic, with T. G. Masaryk,
who had spent some time in the U. S., as president, 1918. Religious liberty was estab-
lished, the statue of Mary, erected on the central square of Prag, pulled down, and a
massive monument dedicated to Huss with an address by Masaryk. The * Czechoslovak
National Reformed Catholic Church/ now constituting 4 per cent, of the population, was
organized, 1920, and occupies a position midway between Romanism and Protestantism,
leaning to the Greek Church. Its first bishop received consecration from a Serbian
bishop. It uses the national tongue in worship and practises clerical marriage and the
elective principle in the choice of its bishops. The Hussites, adopting the name 'The
Evangelical Union of Bohemian Brethren/ have doubled in numbers and carry on a theo-
logical seminary in Prag with a full faculty, partly supported by the state and occupying
quarters in the university buildings. In 1925 the papal nuncio, as a protest at the part
taken by Masaryk and the government at a Huss celebration, left Prag. Papal relations
were re-established, 1927. Masaryk holds the degree of doctor of theology from the
theological seminary in Prag for a thesis on Huss. — ED.
§ 74. THE DEFORMATION IN POLAND. 581
§ 74. THE REFOEMATION IN POLAND AND THE CONSENSUS OF SENDOMTB.
A.D. 1570.
Literature.
Consensus Sendomirien8i8t in NIEMEYEE, pp. 551 sqq. The German text in BEOS, Vol. n. pp. 8T sqq,
JOANNIS A LASOO : Opera tarn edita quam inedita recensuit vitam autoris enarravit A. KUTPEB. Am-
stel. 1866, 2 Tom. The first volume contains his dogmatic and polemic writings, including the Respon-
sfo adv. Hosiivm (1559) ; the second his Confession, Catechisms, and Letters, including a few from Poland,
1556-59 (Vol. II. pp. 746-765). His Letters were previously published by GEEDEsnrs, in his Scrinium
antiquarium, Groning. 1750.
DAN. EKN. JABLONSKI : Historia consensus Sendomiriensis inter evangelicos regni Polonies et M.D. Lithu-
ania in synodo generali evangelicorum utriusque partis Sendomirics A.D. 1570 die 14 Aprilfe initi. Bero-
lini, 1731.
C. G. vow FEIEBB : Reformationsgeschichte von Polen und Lithauen. Breslau, 1786, 3 vols.
VALEEIAN KEASINSKI (an exiled Polish Count) : Historical Sketch of the Rise, Progress, and Decline of
the Reformation in Poland. London, 1838 and 1840, 2 vols. German translation by W. AD. LUTDATT.
Leipz. 1841. KKASINSKI : Sketch of the Religious History of the Slavonic Nations. Edinburgh, 1851. The
same in French (Histoire religieuse des peuples slaves'), Paris, 1853, with an introduction by Merle df Au-
bigne.
G. W. TH. FISOHEE: Versuch einer Geschichte der Reformation in Polen. Grate, 1855-56, 2 vols.
P. BAETELS : Johannes a Lasco. Elberfeld, 1860. In Vol. IX. of Leben der Vater der reform. Kirche.
Dr. EEBKAM : Art. Sendomir, in Herzog's Real-EncyKL Vol. XZL pp. 24-45. Dr. EEDMANW : Art Polen,
ibid. Vol. XII. pp. 1 sqq.
The history of the Reformation in Poland is as sad as that in Bo-
hemia. It started with fair prospects of success, but was suppressed
by the counter-reformation under the energetic and unscrupulous lead-
ership of the Jesuits, who took advantage of the dissensions among
Protestants, the weakness of the court, and the fickleness of the no-
bility, obtained the control of the education of the aristocracy and
clergy, and ultimately brought that unfortunate kingdom to the brink
of internal ruin before its political dismemberment by the surround-
ing powers.
POLAND IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTUBY.
Poland became a mighty kingdom by the union with Lithuania
(1386) and the successful wars with the Teutonic order in Prussia.
In the middle of the sixteenth century it extended from the shores
of the Baltic to the Black Sea, and embraced Great Poland (Posen),
Little Poland (Warsaw), Lithuania, Samogitia (Wilna), Courland, Li-
vonia, Esthland, Podlesia, Volhynia, Podolia, Ukraine, and the Prus-
sian, territories of Dantzic, Culm, and Ermeland. The population was
Slavonic, with a large number of Germans and Jews. It originally
received Christianity from the Greek Church, through Bohemia, but,
owing to its close connection with the German empire, it became, like
Bohemia, Eoman Catholic during the tenth century. The government
582 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
was in the hands of the nobility, which controlled the king. The
power of the Church was restricted to spiritual affairs, and weakened
by the immorality of the clergy.
EEFOKMATTO3ST*
Poland never showed special devotion to the Roman See, and dur-
ing the Council of Constance manifested some sympathy with the
reform of Hus. Waldenses, Bohemians, and all classes of Protest-
ants, even Socinians and Anabaptists, found hospitable shelter.
The Lutheran Reformation was introduced by Polish students re-
turning from Wittenberg, and by Lutheran tutors employed in the
families of the nobles. It triumphed in the German cities of Dant-
zic (1525) and Thorn (1530).
Among the Slavonic population and the higher nobility, and in
the University of Cracow, Calvinism made rapid progress. It was
patronized by Prince Nicholas Radziwill, the Chancellor of Poland
under King Sigismund Augustus II. (1548-1572). The king himself
corresponded with Calvin, and read his ' Institutes' with great zeal.
Calvin dedicated to him his Commentary on the Epistle to the He-
brews, and in some remarkable letters solemnly urged him to use the
favorable opportunity for the introduction of the pure doctrine and
worship of Christ before the door might be forever closed. In a
large kingdom with strongly feudal institutions he would allow, for
the sake of unity and order, and after the model of the ancient
Church, the episcopal organization, with an archbishop and a regular
succession ; but he thought that under the circumstances the Refor-
mation could not be introduced without some irregularity, since the
papal bishops had become the open enemies of the gospel. He became
at last discouraged by the indecision of the king, and lost confidence
in the sincerity of the nobles. His fears were only too well realized.1
Another powerful element were .the Bohemian Brethren, who, driven
from their native land in 1548, emigrated in large numbers and or-
ganized forty congregations in Great Poland.2 They were well re-
1 On Calvin's relation to Poland, see Stahelin, Job. Calvin, Vol. II. pp. 22 sqq.
a Vergerins wrote, 1557, to Stanislaus Ostrorog: 'Esse jam in Poknia cirdter XL ad
eonm nvrmam vnstfastas ecclesias, guce sane Jlorent, multo autem plures jpropediem instituen-
das.9
§ 74. THE BEFOEMATION IN POLAND. 583
eeived, and, by the affinity of race and language, their purity, sim-
plicity, and strict discipline, they made a deep impression on the Sla-
vonic Poles. The Brethren united with the Calvinists at the first
general Protestant Synod held at Kosminek, 1555. The latter adopt-
ed the confession, liturgy, and episcopal government of the former.
This step was highly approved by Calvin, who wrote to a Polish
nobleman, Stanislaus Krasinski : ' From a union with the Waldenses
[as the Brethren were sometimes called] I hope the best, not only
because God blesses every act of a holy union of the members of
Christ, but also because at the present crisis the experience of the
Waldenses, who are so well drilled in the service of the Lord, will
be of no small benefit to you.3 He also advocated union with the
adherents of the Augsburg Confession as this was understood and ex-
plained by its author. He was invited by the nobility to Poland, but
could not leave Geneva.
JOHN A LASOO.
In Calvin's place appeared, by his advice and probably at the invi-
tation of the king, JOHN A LASOO, or LASH, a Polish nobleman, dis-
tinguished among the Reformers of the second rank. Born at War-
saw, 1499, and educated for the priesthood by his uncle, the Archbishop
of Gnesen and Primas of Poland, he made a literary journey to Hol-
land and Switzerland, and became personally acquainted with Zwingli
at Zurich (1524) and with Erasmus at Basle (1525), who shook his
faith in the Eoman Church.1 On his return to Poland he endeavored
to introduce a moderate reformation, but the country was not pre-
pared for it. He declined an offer to a bishopric, and sacrificed
bright prospects to his conviction, preferring to be in a foreign land
£a poor servant of Christ crucified for him.5 He labored several
years as Reformed pastor in Emden, East Friesland, until the Interim
troubles drove him and his friends to England. He organized in Lon-
don three congregations of Dutch, German, French, and Italian emi-
grants (ecclesice peregrinorum) on a Presbyterian and voluntary basis,
under the protection of Archbishop Cranmer and Edward VL The
persecution of Queen Mary forced him again to wander in exile.
1 Erasmus spoke of Laski in the highest terms, and sold him his library for three hundred
crowns, with the privilege of retaining it till his death. Krasinski, L c. p. 98 (German ed.).
VOL. L— P *»
584 THE CBEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
When he landed with a hundred and seventy-five members of his
flock in Denmark, 1553, he was refused shelter in cold winter because
he could not subscribe to the Lutheran doctrine of the real pres-
ence. He fully experienced the force of his motto, * The pious have
no home on earth, for they seek heaven.' After laboring a short time
in a congregation of English and other pilgrims in Frankfort-on-the
Main, he accepted the invitation to his native country in 1556, and
was made General Superintendent of Little Poland. Here he pre-
pared, with the aid of other scholars, an admirable Polish transla
tion of the Scriptures, published after his death, organized Keformed
Churches (which increased in his time to the number of one hundred
and twenty-two), and confirmed the union of the Oalvinists with the
Bohemian Brethren, although he himself preferred the Presbyterian
polity with lay representation to the Bohemian episcopacy, and dif-
fered from their view of the Lord's Supper and other articles of their
confession. He died Jan. 7, 1560, in the midst of work and care.1
PETER PAUL VERG3DBIO,2
During the same period Poland was twice visited (1557 and 1559)
by another remarkable man among the secondary reformers — PETER
PAUL VEEGEKIO (1498-1565), formerly papal nuncio to Germany and
Bishop of Capo d'Istria.2 In the attempt to refute the Lutheran
writings he had become a Protestant, introduced the Reformation in
the Italian parts of the Grisons (Yaltellina, Poschiavo, and Bregaglia),
and then took up his residence in Tiibingen under the protection of
Duke Christopher of Wurtemberg, writing many books and making
important missionary journeys. He was well received in Poland by
Prince Badziwill and the king. He associated mainly with Luther-
ans and the Bohemian Brethren, but labored for the cause of union,
like Laski.3
1 He wrote to Calvin, Feb. 19, 1557 (Opera, Vol. II. p. 746): clta nunc obru&r curis ac
negottis, mi Galvine! ut nihil possim scribere. Hinc hastes, illinc falsi fratres nos adariun-
twr, ut non sit guies ulla, sed et pios nudtos habemus, sit Deo gratia! qw noUs $wt et adw-
mento et consolationi.9
* See Chr. H. Sixt : Feints Patdvs Vergerius, ...eine reformationsgeschichtliche Monogra-
phic (Braunschweig, 1855), pp. 391 sqq. and 437 sqq. Comp. also Herzog's art. Vergerius, in
his Real-Encykl Vol. XVDL pp. 65 sqq.
3 He thought at one time of joining the Unitas Fratrum, being disgusted with the renewal
of tue sacramental war. Even Melauchthon. once expressed a similar desire, S'« Valdensium
§ 74. THE REFORMATION IN POLAHD. 585
He aided the Reformation by his able pen, and the Roman histo-
rian Raynaldus says that Hhis wretched heretic led many weak Cath-
olics into the camp of Satan.' But his stay in Poland was too short
to leave permanent results.
THE PAPAL REACTION AND TRIUMPH.
In the mean time the Eoman Catholic party, under the leadership
of Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, Bishop of Ermeland (d. 1579), was very
active. Pope Paul IV. sent a nuncio, Lipomani, to Poland, and urged
the king to banish Laski and Yergerio from the country, and to sup-
press, with every power at his command, the rising heresy, if he would
save his honor, his crown, and his soul. The weak king vacillated
between the advice of Calvin and the threats of the Pope, and did
nothing. He allowed the glorious opportunity to pass, and died in
1572, the last of the House of Jagellon. The nobles were likewise
undecided, and many of them were carried away by the Unitarian
heresy which began to spread in Poland in 1558.
During the interregnum which followed the death of Sigmund Au-
gustus, the nobles, before electing a new king, concluded in 1573 a pat-
riotic treaty of peace for the protection of religious freedom, under the
name of Pax Dissidentium — that is, of the Roman Catholic and the
three evangelical Churches.1 They required Duke Henry of Anjou, the
brother of the King of France and a violent enemy of the Huguenots,
to accept the treaty as a condition of the crown, hoping to break it
afterwards. On being peremptorily told by the Great Marshal, in
the midst of the act of coronation, 'Si non jurab'is non regndbis? he
took the oath in spite of the remonstrance of the Komish party ; but
he left Poland in 1574, being called to the throne of France after the
death of his brother, Charles IX. His Protestant successor, Stephen
Bathori of Transylvania (1575-86), took the same oath, but after-
wards joined the Eoman Church and opened the door to the Jesuits
This was the turning-point
Under Sigmund III. — a Swedish prince, who had been educated
ecclesiis me inserere et in illis mart; placent enim mihi summopere.* See his letter to V, Die-
trich, quoted by Herzog, p. 71.
1 The Roman Catholics objected to being called Dissidentes, and were opposed to the whole
treaty.
586 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
and converted by Jesuits, and was elected king in 1587 — there began
a series of vexations and oppressions of the Protestants which grad-
ually reduced them to a poor remnant, except in the Prussian part
of Poland where the German element prevailed. Even Laski's rela-
tions and the four sons of Eadziwill returned to the Eoman Church ;
one of these sons became a cardinal ; another made a pilgrimage to
Jerusalem, and spent five thousand ducats for the purchase and de-
struction of Polish Bibles which his father had published (1563) at his
expense.1 Hence the great scarcity of this work. It was an essential
part of the Jesuit counter-reformation to burn the whole Protestant
literature, and thus to suppress all independent thought. In this it
succeeded only too well. The Polish nation, after the light of the
gospel was extinguished, hastened step by step to its internal and ex-
ternal ruin.
THE CONSENSUS OB1 8ENDOMER.
After the death of LasM (1560) and Prince Eadziwill (1567) the
Protestants had no commanding leader, and felt the more the neces-
sity of some union for their own safety. An organic union would
have been the best, and would perhaps have made them strong enough
to carry the king and the nobles with them* But for such a step they
were not prepared. Instead of this the Lutherans (influenced by the
liberal advice of the Melanchthonian divines of Wittenberg), the Cal-
vinists, and the Bohemian Brethren effected a confederate union at
the Synod of Sendomir,2 April 14, 1570, and expressed it in the Con-
sensus SendomiriensiS) the only important confessional document of
the evangelical Churches in Poland. It was published by authority,
in Latin and Polish, in 1586, with a preface signed by Erasmus Glicz-
ner, Lutheran Superintendent of Great Poland, in the name of the
ministers of the Augsburg Confession, by John Laurentius, Superin-
tendent of the Bohemian Brethren in Great Poland, and by Paulus
Gilovius, Superintendent of the Eeformed Churches in Little Poland.3
1 Krasinski, p. 297.
2 A town on the Vistula in Little Poland. Krasinski and Gindely call it Sandomir.
8 The full title is * Consensus in fide et religione Christiana inter Ecclesias Ev angelicas
Majoris et Minoris Polonies, Magnique Ducaius Lithuania et caterantm ejus regni provin-
ciarum, primo Sendomirice Anno MDLXX. in Synodo generali sancitus, et deinceps in aliis,
ac demum in Wlodislaviensi general* Synodo Anno MDLXXXIIL confirmatus, et Serenis-
timis Polonies Regibus, August o, Henrico ac Stepha.no oblatus, nunc autem ex decreto Synodic*
§ U. THE EfetOBMAttON IN POLAND.
The Consensus sets forth that the three orthodox evangelical Church-
es are agreed in the doctrines of God, the Holy Trinity, the Incar-
nation, the person of Christ, justification by faith, and other funda-
mental articles, as taught in the Augsburg, the Bohemian, and Hel-
vetic Confessions, against papists, sectarians, and all enemies of the
gospel ; that in the unfortunate sacramentarian controversy they adopt
that explanation of the words of institution which distinguishes (with
Irenaeus) between the earthly form and the heavenly substance in the
Lord's Supper, and regards the visible elements not as mere signs,
but as conveying to the believer truly through faith that which they
represent.1
Then follows a long extract on the sacraments from the Repetition
of the Augsburg Confession, or Saxon Confession, which Melanchthon
prepared in 1551 for the Council of Trent.
The Consensus thus adopts the later Melanchthonian or Calvinistic
theory ; it avoids the characteristic Lutheran terms (manducatio oralis,
etc.), and demands faith as the medium of receiving the matter rep-
resented by the elements. The doctrine of predestination was not
touched, as there seems to have been no controversy about it
in publicum typis editus. Anno CJaisti MDLXKKVL1 This edition contains the supple-
mentary resolutions of the Synods of Posen (1570), Cracow (1573), Petricow (1578), and
Vladislav (1583), It was reprinted at Thorn, 1592 and 1596 (with the Ada et conclusiones
synodi generate Thoruniensis anni 1595); at Heidelberg, 1605; at Geneva, in the Corpus et
Syntagma Conf., 1612 and 1654 (from the Heidelberg edition); at Frankfort-on-the-Oder,
1704 (with a Preface and German translation of Dr. Sam. Strimesius) ; and at Berlin, 1731,
in Jablonski's Historia cons. Send. Niemeyer (1840) gives the Latin text from the edition of
Thorn, with all the supplements (pp. 551-591). Bockel excludes the Consensus (as not being
strictly Reformed) from his collection. Beck gives the German text, but without the additions j
and so also Dr. Nitzsch, in his Urkundenbuch der Evangelischen Union (Bonn, 1853), pp. 72 sqq.
1 Niemeyer, p. 554 : * Convenimus in sententia verborum Domini nostri Jesu Christit ut itta
orthodoxe intellecta sunt a patribus, ac inprimis Irenceo, qui duabus rebus, scilicet terrena et
ccelesti, hoc mysterium constare dixit ; neque elements signave nuda et vacua ilia esse asseri-
mus, sed simul reipsa CREDENTIBUS exhibere et prcestare FIDE, quod significant. Denique ut
expressius clariusque loquamur, convenimus, ut credamus et confiteoanur^ STTBSTANTIALEM PRJE-
SENTIAM CHRISTI [not CORPORIS ET SANGUINIS CHRISTI], non significwi duntaxat, sed vere in
coma eo [sc. CHRISTO] vescentibus reprcesentari, distribui^ et exhiberi CORPUS ET SANGTJINEM
DOMINI symbolis adjectis ipsi rei minime nudis, secundum Sacramentorum natwamS The
Lutheran members demanded the phrase 'prcesentiam CORPORIS Christi* for iprcesentiam
CHRISTI,' and the insertion of the entire article of the Saxon Confession on the Lord's Sup-
per. The first request was denied by the Calvinists and Bohemian Brethren; the second
was granted, because the Saxon Confession uses the words * in hoc communione vere et sub-
stantialiter adesse CHRISTUM* (not CORPUS Christ*). See Gindely, Gesch. der JBohm. Bruder^
Vol. IL p. 86.
£88 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTMDOM.
In conclusion the Consensus acknowledges the orthodoxy and Chris,
tian character of the three parties, and pledges them to cultivate peace
and charity, and to avoid strife and dissension, which greatly hinder
the progress of the gospel. They should seal this compact by ex-
change of pulpits and of delegates to general synods, and by frequent
sacramental intercommunion ; each denomination retaining its peculiar-
ities in worship and discipline which (according to the Augsburg and
the Saxon Confessions) are consistent with the unity of the Church.
Then follow the signatures of noblemen and ministers.
Great joy was felt at this happy result, and was expressed by mutual
congratulations and united praise of Gk>d.
A few weeks afterwards. May 20, 1570, a synodical meeting was
held at Posen in the same spirit of union, and twenty brief supple-
mentary articles were adopted for the purpose of confirming and pre-
serving the Consensus.1 One of the articles forbids polemics in the
pulpit. When the people, who stood outside of the house where the
meeting was held, heard the happy conclusion, they joined in the
singing of the Te Deum, with tears of joy and gratitude to God.
The union was sealed on the following Sunday by two united serv-
ices in the Lutheran church and in the Bohemian chapel.
The Consensus was again confirmed by the general synods at Cra-
cow, 1573 ; Petricow, 1578 ; Vladislav, 1583 ; and Thorn, 1595, The
last was the krgest synod ever held in Poland.2
The Lutherans who adhered to the Formula of Concord (1580)
withdrew from the Consensus. But the spirit of union which pro-
duced it passed into the three Brandenburg Confessions of the seven-
teenth century, and revived in the Evangelical Union of Prussia.3
1 Consignatio ooservationum necessariarum ad confirmandum et conservandum mutuum Con*
sensum Sendomiria Anno DN. MDLXX. die 14 April in vera religione Christiana wzi-
tum inter Ministros Augustana Confessionis et Fratrum Bohemorum, Posanice eodem anno,
Maii 2Qfacta9 et a Ministris utriusgue costits approbates ac recepta* Printed in the Corpus
et Syntagma Conf., and in Niemeyer, pp. 561-565.
3 See the Acts of these synods relating to the Consensus and to matters of discipline, in
Niemeyer, pp, 565-591.
* See above, pp. 545 sqq. Comp. also Nitzsch, Urkundenouch der JEvangelischen Union,
pp. 80 sqq.
§ 75. THE REFOBMATION IN HUNGABY. 539
§ 75. THE REFORMATION IN HUNGABY AJND THE CONFESSION OF CZENGEB.
Literature.
L The Latin text of the Confessio Czengerina, or Hungarica, in the Corpus et Syntagma Gonf., and in
NIBMBTEB, pp. 539-550 ; the German text in BQOKBL, pp. 851-863.
H. P. BMBEB (Kefonn.) : Historia ecclesice reform, in Eungaria et Transylvania (ed.Lampe). Utrecht,
1728.
RDMNI (Luth.): Memorabilia Aug. Conf. in regno Hungarian. 1787, 2 vols.
Geschichte tier evang. Kirche in Ungarn vomAnfang der Information bis 1850 [by BAUHOFEB, not named].
Mit einer Einteitung von Merle d'Aubigne. Berlin, 1854.
GIBSELBB : Church History, Vol. IV. pp. 258 sqq. (Am. ed.).
BATTB : Geschichte der christl. Eirche, Vol. IV. (1863), pp. 214 sqq., 552 sqq.
BBBAED : Eirchen- und DogmengeschichtetVQl. III. (1866), pp. 415-432.
E. L. TH. HENKE (d. 1872) : Xeuere Kirchengeschichte (ed. by W. Gass). Halle, 1874, Vol. L pp. 352 sqq.
BUBSOVBZKY: Art. Vhgarn^ in Herzog's Iteal-Encykl. VoL XVI. pp. 636 sqq.
Hungary, an extensive and fertile country on the banks of the
lower Danube, once an independent kingdom, then united with the
empire of Austria, and containing a mixed population of Magyars,
Germans, Slowaks, Ruthenians, Croats, Serbs, etc., received the first
seeds of the Christian religion from Constantinople; but the real
apostle of the Hungarians was Stephen I. (979-1038), a king and a
saint, who by persuasion and violence overthrew heathenism and bar-
barism, gave rich endowments to the churches and clergy, and brought
his country into close contact with the Roman Church and the Ger-
man Empire.
THE REFORMATION.
The way for the Reformation was prepared by Waldenses and Bohe-
mian Brethren who sought refuge in Hungary from persecution. The
writings of Luther found ready access among the German population,
and were read with avidity, especially the one on the Babylonian Cap-
tivity of the Church. Many young Hungarians, among them Matthias
D£vay (De Vay), called 'the Hungarian Luther,'1 and Leonard Stockel,
studied at Wittenberg ; others, as John Honter, at Basle ; and on their
return they introduced the new doctrines at Of en, Cronstadt, and other
cities, without any compulsion or aid from the government. It was a
spontaneous movement of the people. Even some bishops and other
dignitaries of the Roman Church became Protestants from conviction.
1 Devay lived in the home of Luther, who calls him ' v»r honest™, grams et ervditus.' He
sympathized, however, with Melanchthon in the eucharistic controversy, and inclined to the
Calvinistic view, so as to cause complaint on the part of the strict Lutherans in Hungary
(1544). See Luther's Letters, Vol. V. p. 644 (ed. De Wette), and Henke, p. 355.
590 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
In 1545 a meeting o£ twenty-nine ministers at Erdod adopted a
creed of twelve articles in essential agreement with the Augsburg
Confession. Another Lutheran synod at Medwisch (Medias), in 1548,
drew up the Oonfessio Pentapolitana, which represented five free
cities in Upper Hungary, and was declared legal in 1555. The Saxon
or German population of Hungary and Transylvania remained mostly
Lutheran.
On the other hand, the majority of the Magyars or Hungarians
proper (the ruling race in that country) were more influenced by the
Latin writings of Melanchthon and Calvin than by the Grerman of
Luther, and during the violent eucharistic controversies in Germany
embraced the Calvinistic creed, which they formally adopted at the
Synod of Czenger, 1557, and which they nominally profess to this
day.1 A large number of Magyar pastors left the Lutheran Confes-
sion and embraced Calvinism in 1563. The Presbyterian polity and
discipline were introduced by the Synods of Tarczal, Gontz, and De-
breczin. Thus the separation of the two evangelical Churches was
completed.
Protestantism made rapid progress under Maximilian II. At the
close of the sixteenth century the larger part of the people and the
whole nobility, with the exception of three magnates, had accepted
the Eeformation. It gave a vigorous impulse to national life and
literary activity. 'It is astonishing to see the amount of religious
information which was then spread among the citizens and the lower
classes, and the fertility of the press in places where now not even
an almanac is printed/2
But under the reign of Rudolph II., King of Hungary from 1572
to 1608, began the counter-reformation of the Jesuits (among whom
Peter Pazmany, a nobleman of Calvinistic parents, was the most suc-
cessful in making converts), and a series of cruel persecutions by the
Hapsburg rulers, urged on by the Popes, which continued for nearly
two centuries, amid reactions, rebellions, civil wars, and wars with
the Turks. A Jesuitical formula for the conversion of Hungarian
1 We say nominally, for both the Kefonned and Lutheran Churches of Hungary have been
much affected by rationalism. This applies, however, to nearly all the State Churches of the
Continent.
8 Borgovszky, 1. c. p. 643.
§ 75. THE BEFOEMATION IN HUNGAEY. 591
Protestants pronounces awful curses on the evangelical faith, with
the promise to persecute it by the sword. "Whether genuine or not,
it shows the intense bitterness of the conflict.1 General Caraffa, a
cruel papist, erected in the market-place at Eperjes a bloody scaf-
fold, or * slaughter-bank,3 where for several months daily tortures and
executions by fire and sword took place (1657).2
Protestantism survived these trials. Joseph EL, by his famous Edict
of Toleration, Oct. 29, 1781, secured to the followers of the Augsburg
and Helvetic Confessions liberty of conscience and public worship.
His brother and successor, Leopold, confirmed it in 1791. The re-
maining restrictions were removed in 1848. The present number of
Protestants in Hungary is about three millions, or one fifth of the
whole population (which in 1869 amounted to fifteen millions and a
half). The Lutheran Confession prevails among the German popula-
tion ; the followers of the Reformed or Helvetic Confession are twice
as numerous, and are mostly Magyars.
THE HTJNG-AEIAK CONFESSION.
The HUNGAEIAN CONCESSION, or CONFESSIO CZENGEEESTA, was prepared
and adopted at a Reformed Synod held at Czenger in 1557 or 1558,3
and printed in 1570 at Debreczin.4
It treats, in brief articles or propositions, of the Triune God, of Jesus
Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Scripture designations of the Holy Spirit,
the rules for explaining the phrases concerning God, the law and the
gospel, the rights and sacraments of the Church, Christian liberty, elec-
tion, the cause of sin, and the only mediator Jesus Christ. It is pre-
ceded by a strong Biblical argument against the anti- Trinitarians
and Socinians, who had spread in Transylvania. It vehemently rejects
the Romish transubstantiation and the Lutheran 'sarcophagiaj* but.
1 See above, p. 92, note 2.
8 Sismondi and Merle d'Aubigne* (L c. p. ix.) state that the persecutions of the Hungarian
Protestants surpassed in cruelty the persecutions of the Huguenots under Louis XIV.
3 The date is uncertain.
* Debreczin is a royal free city in the northeastern part of the Hungarian Lowland, with
about fifty thousand inhabitants, and contains the principal Calvinistic college of the king-
dom. In 1 849 it was the seat of the revolutionary government of Kossuth, and the inde-
pendence of Hungary was there declared in the Reformed Church.
5 'Dawnamus Papisticum delirium . . . primo panem transsubstantiari, et off em, in missa:
deinde sola vccidentia pants manure. . . , fta et eorum insaniam damnamus, 4 asservn*
592 THE CBEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
also the 'sacramentarian3 view of a purely symbolical presence, and
teaches that Christ is truly though spiritually present, and communi-
cates himself in the Lord's Supper as the living bread and the celes-
tial drink, with all his gifts, to the believer.1 It defends infant bap-
tism against the Anabaptists. It teaches a free election, but is silent
about reprobation, and denies that God is the author of sin. Later
synods professed more clearly the doctrine of predestination and the
perseverance of saints.
This Confession presents some original and vigorous features, but
has only a secondary historical importance. It was practically super-
seded by the Second Helvetic Confession of 1566, which is far supe-
rior, and was subscribed by the entire Eeformed clergy of Hungary
convened at Debreczin in 1567. The Heidelberg Catechism was also
introduced.
V. THE ANGLICAN ARTICLES OF RELIGIOK
§ 76. THE ENGLISH KEFOEMATION.
Literature.
L WOEKB oar THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES.
(a) Historical
CHARMS HAEDWTOK (B.D., Archdeacon of Ely, and Christian Advocate in the University of Cam-
bridge, d. 1859) : A History of the Articles of Religion ; to which is added a Series of Documents from A.D.
1536 to A.D. 1615, together with Illustrations from Contemporary Sources. Cambridge, 1851 (reprinted in
Philadelphia, 1852) ; second edition, thoroughly revised, Cambridge, 1859 (pp. 399).
(6) Commentaries.
THOMAS B. JONES : An Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles lrg the Reformers ; being Extracts from the
Works ofLatimer, Ridley, Cranmer, Hooper, Jewell^ Phftpot, Pilkington, Coverdalet Becon, Bradford, Sandys,
GrinsUxl,WhitgffttQtc. London, 1849.
THOMAS ROSBES (Chaplain to Archbishop Bancroft) : The Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England,
an Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles. London, 1579, 1585, 1607, and other editions (under various
titles). Newly edited by J. J. S. Perowne, for * The Parker Society,' Cambridge, 1854* This is the oldest
commentary, and was countenanced by Bancroft, to whom it was dedicated.
Sarcophaffiam, id est, ore corporal sumi corpus Christi natwale, sanguinolentum, sine ulla
mutatione et transsubstantiatione.1 — Niemeyer, pp. 544 sq. The severe judgment of the
Lutheran doctrine was a retaliation for the condemnation of Zwingli and Calvin as sacra-
mentarians by a Lutheran Synod of Hermanstadt. Ebrard, Vol. III. p. 424.
1 ' Sejidmus et eorum delirium, qui Ccenam Domini VACUUM SIGNUM, vel Christi absentia
tantum MEMORIAM his signis recoli docent. Nam sicut Christus est AMEN, TESTIS SIDELIS,
VBR4JC, VERITAS ET VITA . . . ita Oosna Domini est prcesentis et infiniti ceternigue Filii Dei
unigeniti a Patre memoria; qui se et sua bona, carnem suam et sanguinem suum, id est,panem
vivvm et potum cozlestem, Spiritus Sancti ope per verbum promissionis gratice, offert et exhibet
electisjide vera evangelium Christi apprehendentibus.' — Page 545-
§ 76. THE ENGLISH REFORMATION. 593
GILBERT BTJRNET (Bishop of Salisbury ; b.1643, d. 1T15) : An Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles of
the Church of England. Oxford, 1814 (Clarendon Press), and other editions. Revised, with notes, by
James R. Page.
RICHARD LAURENCE, LL.D. (formerly Reg. Prof, of Hebrew in Oxford) : An Attempt to illustrate those
Articles of the Church of England which the Calvinists improperly consider ox CalmnisticaL In eight ser-
mons (Bampton Lectures for 1S34). Oxford, third edition, 1838.
EDWARD HAROLD BROWNE (b. 1811, Bishop of Winchester since 1873, formerly of Ely) : An Exposition
of the Thirty-wine Articles, Historical and Doctrinal. London, 1850-53, in two vols. ; since often repub-
lished in one vol. (ninth edition, 1871) ; Amer. edition, with notes by Bishop WILLIAMS of Connecticut,
New York, 1865.
A. P. POEBES (Bishop of Brechin) : An Explanation of the Thirty-nine Article8t with an Epistle dedica-
tory to the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D. Oxford and London, 1867. (High Church.)
R. W. JELF (Canon of Christ Church, Oxford) : The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England e*»
plained, in a Series of Lectures. Edited by J. R. King, London, 1873.
IL HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IK ENGLAND.
(a) Documents and Contemporary Sources.
WORKS or THE ENGLISH REFORMERS, published by 'The Parker Society,' Cambridge, 1841-54, fifty-four
vols. Contains the writings of Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, Sandys, Coverdale, Jewell, Grindal,
Whitgift, the Zurich Letters, etc.
THE STATE CALENDARS, now being published under the direction of the Master of the Rolls.
JOHN Foxs (one of the Marian exiles, d. 15S7) : Acts and Monuments of the Church, or Book of Martyrs.
London, 1563, and often in three or more volumes. Not accurate, but full of facts told in a forcible style.
WILKINS : Concilia Magnet Brtttanice et Hibernian (446-1717). Four vols. folio. 1736 sq.
E. CARDWELL: Documentary Annals of the Church of England (1546>1716), Oxford, 1844, 2 vols. ; Syno-
dalia (1547-1717), Oxford, 1842, 2 vols. ; The Reformation of the Laws in the Reigns of Henry F12T., Edward
n., and Elizabeth, Oxford, 1850.
(6) Historical Works.
JOHN STBYPE (a most laborious and valuable contributor to the Church history and biography of the
English Reformation period; b. 1643, d. 1737): Ecclesiastical Memorials . . . of the Church of England
under King Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Queen Mary (London, 1725-37 ; Oxford, 1822, 3 vols.) ; Annals
of the Reformation . . .inthe Church of England during Queen Elizabeth's Happy Reign (London, 1738;
Oxford, 1824, 4 vols. ; Memorials of Archbishops Cranmer (2 vols.),ParAwr (3 vols.), Grindal (1 vol.), Whit-
gift (3 vols.). See his Complete Works, Oxford, 1822-40, in twenty-seven vols.
GILBERT BURNET : The History of the Reformation of the Church of England. London, 1679 sqq., 7 vols.,
and other editions. New edition by Pocock.
C. HARDWIOK: History of the Christian Church during the Reformation, third edition (by W. Stubbs).
London, 1873, pp. 165-249.
FRED. SEEBOHM : The Oxford Reformers, Colet, Erasmus, and More. London, 1869. The same : The Era
of the Protestant Revolution. 1874.
The Church Histories of England and of the English Reformation by J. COLLIER (non-Juror), DODD
(Rom. Cath.), THOS. FULLER (Royalist ; Church History of Great Britain until 1658 and The Worthies
of England), NEAL (History of the Puritans'), HETLIN, SOAMES, MASSINSBEABD, SHORT, BLUNT, WADDING-
TON, WEBER, MERLE D'AUBIGNE, FISHER.
Also the secular Histories of England by HUME, MAOAULAT (the introductory chapter), HALLAM
(Constitut, Hist.), LTNGABD (Rom. Cath.), KNIGHT, FBOUDE, RANKE, GREEN, in the sections on the Ref-
ormation period.
The last and, in its final results, the most important chapter in the
history of the Eeformation was acted in that remarkable island which
has become the chief stronghold of Protestantism in Europe, the ruler
of the waves, and the pioneer of modern Christian civilization and
constitutional liberty. The Anglo-Saxon race is intrusted by Provi-
dence with the sceptre of empire in its eastward and westward course.
The defeat of the Armada was that turning-point in history when the
dominion in which the sun never sets passed from Roman Catholic
Spain to Protestant England.
The Eeformation in Britain, favored by insular independence^ was
594 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
a national political as well as ecclesiastical movement, and carried with
it Church and State, rulers and subjects ; while on the Continent it en-
countered a powerful opposition and Jesuitical reaction. It began with
outward changes, and was controlled by princes, bishops, and states-
men rather than by scholars and divines ; while in other countries the
reform proceeded from the inner life of religion and the profound
study of the Scriptures. Good and bad men, from pure and low mo-
tives, took part in the work, but were overruled by a higher power
for a noble end.1 England produced no reformers of such towering ge-
nius, learning, and heroism as Luther and Calvin, but a large number of
learned and able prelates and statesmen, and a noble army of martyrs
worthily led by Craniner, Latitner, Ridley, Hooper, and Eogers. It dis-
played less theological depth and originality than Germany and Swit-
zerland, where the ideas and principles of the Reformation were
wrought out, but a greater power of practical organization. It gave
the new ideas a larger field of action and application to all the rami-
fications of society and all departments of literature, which entered
upon its golden age in the reign of Elizabeth, and which, in wealth of
genius and in veneration for the truths of Christianity, far surpassed
that of any other nation.2 Although at first despotic and intoler-
ant, English Protestantism by its subsequent development became the.
guardian of civil and religious liberty. The fierce struggle betwe<ai
*the old and new learning ' lasted for more than a century, and ps^sed
through a baptism of blood which purified and fertilized the soil of
England and became the seed of new colonies and empires beyond
the sea.
The British Reformation is full of romantic interest, and devel-
oped a great variety of strongly marked characters, who still excite
1 Robert Southey (Life of Wesley, Vol. L p. 266, Harpers' edition) says : * In England the
best people and the worst combined in bringing about the Beformation, and in its progress
it bore evident marks of both.'
a Fisher (The Reformation, p. 533): 'The boldness and independence of the Elizabethan
writers, their fearless and earnest pursuit of truth, and their solemn sense of religion, apart
from all asceticism and superstition, are among the effects of the Reformation. This is equal-
ly true of them as it is of Milton and of the greatest of their successors. Nothing save the
impulse which Protestantism gave to the English mind, and the intellectual ferment which
was engendered by it, will account for the literary phenomena of the Elizabethan times.'
Even that brilliant and racy French critic, Taine, must acknowledge the constant influence
of 'the grave and grand idea of religion, of faith and prayer,' upon such writers as Bacon,
Raleigh, Burton, and Sir Thomas Browne.
§ 76. THE ENGLISH KEtO&MATlON. 595
the passions, prejudices, and contradictory judgments of writers and
readers. It is a succession of tragedies; it abounds in actions and
reactions, in crimes and punishments, in changes of fortune, in men
and women elevated to the pinnacle of power and happiness and
hurled to the abyss of disgrace and misfortune. It furnishes a striking
illustration of the truth that the history of the Church, as well as of
the world, is a judgment of the Church. This idea of righteous retri-
bution imparts a thrilling moral effect to the tragedies of Shakspere,
who lived at the close of these shifting scenes, and gathered from
them his marvelous knowledge of human nature, in all its phases and
conditions, such as no poet ancient or modern ever possessed.
The richest fruit of the British Reformation is the translation of the
Bible — the work of three generations, the best ever made, and to
this day the chief nursery of piety among the Protestant denomina-
tions of the English-speaking race ; and next to it that noble respon-
sive liturgy which animates and regulates the devotions of the Epis-
copal communion on land and sea. These two works are truly na-
tional institutions, and command a veneration and affection above all
other books, not only by their sacred contents, but also by their clas-
sical diction, which sounds in the ear like solemn music from a higher
and better world.
EPOCHS OF THE ENGLISH REFORMATION.
The history of the English Reformation naturally divides itself into
four periods :
1. From 1527 to 1547. The abolition of the authority of the Ro-
man See over England and the dissolution of the monasteries by
Henry YIIL This was chiefly a destructive process and a political
change of the supreme governing power of the Church, prompted by
unworthy personal motives, but it prepared the way for the religious
reformation under the following reign. The despotic and licentious
monarch, whom Leo X. rewarded for his book against Luther with the
title 'Defender of the Faith,5 remained a Catholic in belief and senti-
ment till his death; he merely substituted king -worship for pope-
worship, a domestic tyranny for a foreign one, by cutting off the papal
tiara from the episcopal hierarchy and placing his own crown on the
bleeding neck ; but he could not have effected so great a revolution
596 THE CREEDS OF CHBISTENBOM.
without the sanction of Parliament and a strong clerical and popular
current towards ecclesiastical independence and reform, which showed
itself even before his breach with Rome, and became dominant under
his successor.
2. From 154:7 to 1553. The introduction of the Eeformation in
doctrine and worship under Edward VI., Henry's only son, and the
commencing conflict between the semi-Catholic and the Puritan tend-
encies. The ruling genius of this period was Archbishop Cranmer, the
Melanchthon of England, who by cautious trimming and facile sub-
servience to Henry had saved the cause of the Eeformation through
the trials of a despotic reign for better times.
3. From 1553 to 1558. The papal reaction under Henry's oldest
daughter, Mary Tudor, that 'unhappiest of queens and wives and
women,'1 She had more Spanish than English blood in her veins,
and revenged the injustice done to her mother, Catharine of Ara-
gon. Her short but bloody reign was the period of Protestant mar-
tyrdom, which fertilized the soil of England, and of the exile of
about eight hundred Englishmen, who were received with open arms
on the Continent, and who brought back clearer and stronger views
of the Eeformation. The violent restoration of the old system inten-
sified the hatred of Popery, and forever connected it in the English
mind with persecution and bloodshed, with national humiliation and
disgrace. ' The tale of Protestant sufferings was told with wonderful
pathos and picturesqueness by John Foxe, an exile during the perse-
cution, and his " Book of Martyrs," which was (under the following
reign) set up by royal order in the churches for public reading, passed
from the churches to the shelves of every English household.'
4. From 1558 to 1603. The permanent establishment of the Ee-
formed Church of England in opposition both to Eornan Catholic and
to Puritan dissent during the long, brilliant, and successful reign of
Queen Elizabeth.
This masculine woman, the last and the greatest of the Tudors, in-
herited the virtues and vices of her Catholic father (Henry VIII.) and
her Protestant mother (Anne Boleyn).* She was endowed with rare
1 Tennyson, in Queen Mary, act v. scene 2.
9 Her character is admirably drawn by Froude, and by the latest historian of England,
J. E. Green, A Short History of the English People (London, 1875), pp. 362-370.
§ 76. THE ENGLISH REFORMATION. 597
gifts by nature, and favored with the best education; she was brave
and bold3 yet prudent and cautious ; fond of show, jewelry and dress,
yet parsimonious and mean ; coldly intellectual, high-tempered, capri-
cious, haughty, selfish, and vain, and well versed in the low arts of
intrigue and dissimulation. She trusted more in time and her good
fortune than in Almighty God. She was destitute of religious en-
thusiasm, and managed the Church question from a purely political
point of view. She dropped the blasphemous title 'Head of the
Church of England,5 and was content to be the supreme c Governor'
of the same.1 But with this limitation the royal supremacy was the
chief article in her creed, and she made her bishops feel her power.
6 Proud prelate,3 she wrote to the Bishop of Ely, when he resisted the
spoliation of his see in favor of one of her favorites, 'you know
what you were before I made you what you are ! If you do not im-
mediately comply with my request, by God ! I will unfrock you.9 As
a matter of taste she liked crucifixes, images, and the gorgeous dis-
play of the Roman hierarchy and ritual ; and, being proud of her own
virginity, she disliked the marriage of the clergy ; she insulted the
worthy wife of Archbishop Parker by refusing to call her * Madam,' the
usual address to married ladies. But she had the sagacity to perceive
that her true interests were identified with the cause of Protestant-
ism, and she maintained it with a strong arm, aided by the ablest
council and the national sentiment, against the excommunication of
the Pope, the assaults of Spain, and the intrigues of the Jesuits at
home. This is the basis of the popularity which she enjoyed as a
ruler with all classes of her subjects except the Romanists.
Her ecclesiastical policy at home was a system of compromise in the
interest of outward uniformity. It was fortified by a penal code which
may be explained though not justified by the political necessities and
1 Parliament, in the act of supremacy (1534), declared King Henry, his heirs and successors,
to be 'the only supreme head, on earth, of the Church of England, called the Anglicana Ec-
clesia.' For denying this royal supremacy in spiritual matters, More and Fisher suffered
martyrdom. The thirty-seventh of the Elizabethan Articles modifies it considerably, but still
claims for * the Queen's Majesty the chief power in this Realm of England, . . . unto whom the
chief government of all estates, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth apper-
tain,' etc. Elizabeth disclaimed the sacerdotal character which her father had assumed, but
retained and exercised the vast power of appointing her prelates, summoning and dissolving
convocations, sanctioning creeds and canons, and punishing heresies and all manner of abuses
with the civil sword.
598 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
the general intolerance of the times, but which was nevertheless crud
and abominable, and has been gradually swept away by the progress
of a nobler and more enlightened policy of religious liberty.
As in the case of her predecessors, we should remember that the
policy of Elizabeth was merely the outward frame which surrounds
the true inward history of the religious movement of her age. The
doctrinal reformation with which we are concerned was begun in the
second and completed in the fourth period.
With the reign of Elizabeth ended the great conflict with Eome. It
was followed by the internal conflict between Puritanism and Epis-
copacy, which, after a temporary triumph of the former under Crom-
well, resulted in the re-establishment of the Episcopal Church and the
expulsion of Puritanism (1662), until another revolution (1688) brought
on the final downfall of the treacherous Stuarts and the toleration of
the Dissenters, who thereafter represented, in separate organizations,
the left or radical wing of English Protestantism.
§ 77. THE DOCTRINAL POSITION OF THE ANGLICAN COTBOH AOT> HER
RELATION TO OTHER CHURCHES.
The Reformed Church of England occupies an independent posi-
tion between Romanism on the one hand, and Lutheranism and Cal-
vinism on the other, with strong affinities and antagonisms in both
directions. She nursed at her breasts Calvinistic Puritans, Arminian
Methodists, liberal Latitudinarians, and Romanizing Tractarians and
Ritualists. This comprehensiveness of the Church as a whole is quite
consistent with the narrowness and exclusiveness of particular parties.
It repels and attracts; it caused the large secessions which occurred
at critical junctures in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth
centuries, but it also explains the individual accessions which she con-
tinually though quietly receives from other Churches.
The English mind is not theorizing and speculative, but eminently
practical and conservative; it follows more the power of habit than
the logic of thought ; it takes things as they are, makes haste slowly,
mends abuses cautiously, and aims at the attainable rather than the
ideal. The Reformation in England was less controlled by theology
than on the Continent, and more complicated with ecclesiastical and
political issues. Anglican theology is as much embodied in the episco-
§ 77. THE DOCTBINAL POSITION OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH. 599
pal polity and the liturgical worship as in the doctrinal standards. The
Book of Common Prayer is catholic, though purged of superstitious ele-
ments ; the Articles of Eeligion are evangelical and moderately Calvin-
istic.1 The hierarchical, sacerdotal, and sacramental systems of relig-
ion are congenial and logically inseparable ; they moderate and check
the Protestant tendency, and if unduly pressed they become Roman-
izing. In great minds we often find great antagonisms or opposite
truths dwelling together unreconciled ; while partisans look only at one
side. Augustine, Luther, and even the more logical Calvin, believed
in divine sovereignty and human responsibility, free election and sac-
ramental grace, and combined reverence for Church authority with
independence of private judgment The English Church leaves room
for catholic and evangelical, mediaeval and modern ideas, without an
attempt to harmonize them ; but her parties are one-sided, and differ
as widely as separate denominations, though subject to the same bishop
and worshiping at the same altar. She is composite and eclectic in
her character, like the English language ; she has more outward uni-
formity than inward unity ; she is fixed in her organic structure, but
elastic in doctrinal opinion, and has successively allowed opposite
schools of theology to grow up which claim to be equally loyal to
her genius and institutions. She has lost in England by those peri-
odical separations which followed her great religious movements (the
Puritan, the Methodist, the Anglo-Catholic) nearly one half of the na-
tion she once exclusively controlled ; yet she remains to this day the
richest and strongest national Church in Protestant Christendom, and
exercises more power over England than Lutheranism does over Ger-
many or Calvinism over Switzerland and Holland. In the United
States the Protestant Episcopal Church is numerically much smaller
1 The ingenious and sophistical attempt of Dr. John Henry Newman, in his famous Tract
Number Ninety (Oxford, 1841), to un-Protestantize the Thirty-nine Articles, has been best
refuted by his own subsequent transition to Borne. As a specimen of this non-natural inter-
pretation we mention what he says on Art. XI., which teaches as *a most wholesome doctrine*
'that we are justified by faith only.' This means that faith is the sole internal instrument of
justification, while baptism is the sole outward means and instrument ; it does not interfere with
the doctrine that good works are also a means of justification (pp. 21 sqq.). That is, the Prot-
estant doctrine of justification by faith alone, which the Council of Trent condemned, is iden-
tical with the Eomish doctrine of justification by faith and works, which the same Council
taught. A more learned and elaborate work, which minimizes the Protestantism of the Ar-
ticles and makes them bear a catholic sense, is the Explanation by the late Bishop Forbes of
TBrechin, above quoted.
VOL. L— Q Q
600 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
than most of the denominations which in England were cast out 01
voluntarily went out from the established Church as Non-conformists
and Dissenters; but she will always occupy a commanding position
among the higher classes and in large cities, because she represents
the noble institutions and literature of the aristocratic, conservative,
and venerable Church of England.
THE MELANOHTHONIAN INFLUENCE.
Germany received Eoman Catholic Christianity from England
through Winfrid or Boniface, and in turn gave to England the first
impulse of the evangelical Eeformation. The writings of Luther were
read with avidity by students in Oxford and Cambridge as early as
":.52f. Cranmer spent some time in Germany, and was connected
frith it by domestic ties.1 Henry VIII. never overcame his intense
dislike of Luther, kindled by their unfortunate controversy on the
seven sacraments, and strengthened by Luther's breach with Eras-
mus; but he respected Melanchthon for his learning and wisdom,
and invited him to assist in reforming the English Church.2 He en-
tered into negotiations with the Wittenberg divines and the Lutheran
princes of the Smalcald League, but chiefly from political motives
and without effect.
Under Edward VI. the influence of the Melanchthonian theology, as
embodied in the Augsburg Confession (1530) and the Suabian Confession
(1552), became more apparent, and can be clearly traced in Cranmer's
earlier writings, in some of the Articles of Eeligion, and in those parts
of the Book of Common Prayer which were borrowed from the c Con-
sultation' of Archbishop Hermann of Cologne, compiled by Bucer and
Melanchthon (1543). Hence the English Church has been called some-
times by Lutheran divines an Ecclesia LutJwranizans.
1 His second wife, whom he secretly married in 1532, before his elevation to the primacy
(March, 1533), was a niece of the Lutheran divine Osiander at Niirnherg, who subsequently
excited a violent controversy ahout the doctrine of justification.
a Melanchthon was twice called to England in 1534 ('Ego jam alt&ris litms in Angliam
vocor*). In 1535 he dedicated an edition of his Loci to Henry, at the request of Barnes, who
thought it would promote the progress of the Reformation. Henry renewed the invitation in
1538, and requested the Elector of Saxony to send ^DominumPhilippvmMelancthonem^ in cuius
excellenti eruditione et sano judicio a lonis omnibus multa spes reposita est,' together with some
other learned men, to England. Under Edward VI. Melanchthon was called again, and in 1 553
he was appointed Professor of Divinity in Camhridge, hut he never saw England. See Laurence,
\. c. pp. 198 sqq. ; Hardwick, Hist, of the Art. pp. 52 sqq. ; C. Schmidt, Phil Mel pp. 283-289.
§ 77. THE DOCTBINAL POSITION OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH. 601
But the peculiar views of Luther on the real presence and the ubiq-
uity of Christ's body found no congenial* soil in England. Cranmer
himself abandoned them as early as Dec. 14, 1548, when a public dis-
cussion was held in London on the eucharist ; and he adopted, to-
gether with Eidley, the Oalvinistic doctrine of a virtual presence and
communication of Christ's glorified humanity. He held that ' Christ is
figuratively in the bread and wine, and spiritually in them that wor-
thily eat the bread and drink the wine ; but, on the other hand, con-
tended that our blessed Lord is really, carnally, and corporally in
heaven alone, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the
dead.'1 This doctrinal change was embodied (1552) in the revision
of the first Prayer-Book of Edward VL ; the prayer of oblation was
converted into a thanksgiving, and the old formula of distribution,
which was compatible even with a belief in transubstantiation ('The
Body of our Lord Jesus Christ/ etc.), was replaced by another which
a Zwinglian may approve ('Take and eat this in remembrance that
Christ died for thee/ etc.). In the Elizabethan Service-Book the two
formulas were combined (the second being an explanation of the first),
and have ever since continued in use.
In the violent controversies which agitated Germany after Luther's
death, and which led to the Formula of Concord, England sided with
the milder Melanchthonian school. Queen Elizabeth made an effort
to prevent the adoption of the Formula and the condemnation of the
Eeformed doctrines.2
1 So his ultimate doctrine is correctly stated by Hardwick, History of the. Reformation,
p. 209. Cranmer wrote very extensively on the eucharist, and especially against the Romish
mass. See the first volume of the Parker Society's edition of his Works. His change of
view is due to the influence of the book of Ratramnus (Bertram) against transubstantia-
tion, the tract of Bullinger on the eucharist, and the personal influence of Ridley, Peter
Martyr, and Bucer. Bishop Browne says (on Art. XXVIII. Sect I. p. 711 of the Am. ed.):
'Both Cranmer and Ridley, to whom we are chiefly indebted for our formularies, maintained
the doctrine nearly identical with that maintained by Calvin, and before him by Bertram. . . .
These sentiments of onr Reformers were undoubtedly embodied in cur Liturgy and Articles.
... In the main, Calvin, Melanchthon in his later views, and the Anglican divines were at
one.' John Knox entirely agreed with Cranmer in the Reformed doctrine of the eucharist,
and he objected only to the kneeling posture, which led to the insertion of a special rubric in
the Prayer-Book. See Lorimer, John Knox in England^ pp. 49 and 14:5*
2 See above, p. 335,
602 THE CREEDS OF CHBISTENDOM.
THE ZWrnaUAU , AND CALYENISITO INFLUENCE.
The doctrines of Zurich and Geneva began to spread in England
under the reign of Edward VL Calvin, whose books were prohibited
by Henry VIII. (in 1542), corresponded freely with the Duke of Som-
erset (Oct. 22, 1548), Edward YL, and Cranmer, and urged a more
thorough reformation of doctrine and discipline, and a better educa-
tion of the clergy, but left episcopacy untouched, which he was will-
ing to tolerate in England as well as in the kingdom of Poland.1
His controversy with Pighius about predestination excited considera-
ble sympathy in England (1552), and his doctrine of the eucharist
gained ground more rapidly. Cranmer called to his aid prominent
Reformed and Unionistic divines, such as Peter Martyr, Ochino, Laski,
Bucer, and Fagius, and gave them high positions in Oxford, Cam-
bridge, and London. It is characteristic of his catholicity of spirit
that in 1548 he conceived the plan of inviting Melanchthon of Wit-
tenberg, Bullinger of Zurich, Calvin of Geneva, Bucer of Strasburg,
Peter Martyr, Laski, and others to Lambeth for the purpose of draw-
ing up a union creed for all evangelical Churches.2 John Hooper,
who had resided two years at Zurich, was made Bishop of Gloucester
(1551), although he went even beyond Bullinger and Calvin in mat-
ters of clerical vestments and ceremonies, and may be called a fore-
runner of Puritanism. He died heroically for his faith under Mary
(1555). John Knox was elected one of the chaplains of Edward VL,
and was offered the bishopric of Rochester, which he declined. He
exerted considerable influence, and would no doubt have retained it
under Elizabeth, had he not (together with his teacher and friend,
1 Stahelin, VoL EL pp. 51 sqq., discusses at length Calvin's correspondence with England.
Hard wick speaks of * the obtrusive letters of Calvin ;' but his counsel was solicited from every
direction. In the controversy of the English exiles at Frankfort both parties (Cox and Knox)
appealed to the Genevan Reformer for advice. Cranmer requested him to write often to King
Edward. See Calvin to Farel, June 15, 1551 (Opera, VoL XTV. fol. 133): * Cantwriensis
nihil me utilius facturum admonwt, guam si ad Regem scepius scriberem. Hoc mihi longe
gratius, quam si ingenti pecunice summa ditatus forem.' Viret informed Farel in the same
year and month (ibid, fol. 131), that the king sent to Calvin 'coronatos centum et libellum a
se conscriptum gallice in papatum, cuius censuram a Calvino exigit. . . . Accepit Calvinus a
multis Anglice proceribus midtas literas plenas Jiumanitatis. Omnes testantur se ejus ingenio
et laborious valde oblectari. Hortantur ut scepe scribat. Protector scripsit nominatim.'
a Strype's Memorials of Qranmer, VoL I. p. 584 ; Hardwick, History of the Reformation,
p. 212.
§ 77. THE DOCTRINAL POSITION OF THE ANGLICAN CHUECH. 603
Calvin) incurred her personal dislike by his trumpet-blast ' against
the monstrous regimen of women,3 which was provoked by the fatal
misgovernment of her sister.1
Under the reign of Mary the English exiles formed the closest ties
of personal and theological friendship with the Eeformers of Switzer-
land, and on their return under Queen Elizabeth they took the lead in
the restoration and reconstruction of the Reformed Church of England.
Bishop Jewel, the final reviser of the Thirty-nine Articles, wrote to
Peter Martyr at Zurich (Feb. 7, 1562) : c As to matters of doctrine, we
have pared every thing away to the very quick, and do not differ from
you by a naiPs breadth ; for as to the ubiquitarian [i. e., the Luther-
an] theory there is no danger in this country. Opinions of that kind
can only gain admittance where the stones have sense.32
Bullinger's 'Decades5 were for some time the manual of the clergy.
Afterwards Calvin's * Institutes' became the text-book of theology in
Oxford and Cambridge.3 Even his Catechism was ordered to be used
by statute in the universities (1587). Next to him his friend and sue*
cessor, Beza, was for many years the highest theological authority. The
University of Cambridge, in thanking him for the valuable gift of
Codex D of the New Testament, in 1581, acknowledges its preference
for him and John Calvin above any men that ever lived since the days
of the Apostles.4 Beza's editions of the Greek Testament, his elegant
1 The influence of Knox upon the English Reformation has heen more fully brought to
light from the Knox Papers in Dr. Williams's library at London by Dr. Peter Lorimer, in
John Knox and the Church of England (London, 1875), pp. 98 sqq.
2 Zurich Letters, second series, 1. 100. Prof. Fisher, in quoting this passage, adds the
just remark (The Reformation, p. 341) : * There is no need in bringing further evidence on
this point, since the Articles themselves explicitly assert the Calvinistic view [on the Lord's
Supper]. In speaking of the English Reformers as Calvinists, it is not implied that they
derived their opinions from Calvin exclusively, or received them on his authority. They were
able and learned men, and explored the Scriptures and the patristic writers for themselves.
Yet no name was held in higher honor among them than that of the Genevan Reformer.'
3 When Robert Sanderson (Professor of Theology in Oxford, 1642, afterwards Bishop of
Lincoln, d. 1663) began to study theology in Oxford about 1606, he was recommended, as
was usual at that time, to read Calvin's Institutes, 'as the best and perfectest system of di-
vinity, and the fittest to be laid as the ground-work in the study of this profession.* Blunt,
Dictionary of Sects, etc., p. 97. Comp. Hooker's judgment below, p. 607.
* * Nam hoc scito, post unices scriptures sacratissimam cognitionem, nullos unquam ex omni
memoria temporum scriptores extitisse, quosmemorabili viro Joanni Calvino tibiqueprceferamus.*
See Scrivener's Codex Bezos, Introd. p. vi., and his Introd. to the Critic, of the New Testament,
second edition, 1874, p. 112. Scrivener regards this veneration as an iU omen 'for the peace
of the English Church.'
604 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Latin translation, and exegetical notes were in general use in England
during the reigns of Elizabeth and James, and were made the chief
basis not only of the Geneva Bible (1560), but also of the revision of
the Bishops5 Bible under King James (1611).1
It is not too much to say that the ruling theology of the Church of
England in the latter half of the sixteenth and the beginning of the
seventeenth century was Oalvinistic.2 The best proof of this is fur-
nished by the ' Zurich Letters/3 extending over the whole period of
the ^Reformation, the Elizabethan Articles, the Second Book of Hom-
ilies (chiefly composed by Bishop Jewel), the Lambeth Articles, the
Irish Articles, and the report of the delegation of Bang James to the
Oalvinistie Synod of Dork*
EPISCOPACY.
This theological sympathy between the English and the Continental
Churches extended also to the principles of Church government, which
was regarded as a matter of secondary importance, and subject to
change, like rites and ceremonies, * according to the diversities of
countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained
against God's Word' (Art. XXXIV.). The difference was simply
1 See my tract on the Revision of the English Version of the New Testament, pp. 28, 29,
and Westcott's History of the English Bible, pp. 294 sq. A number of errors in the English
Version, as well as excellences, can be traced to Beza.
* Macaulay (in his introductory chapter, p. $9, Boston edition) says: 'The English Reform-
ers were eager to go as far as their brethren on the Continent. They unanimously condemned
as anti-Christian numerous dogmas and practices to which Henry had stubbornly adhered,
and which Elizabeth reluctantly abandoned. Many felt a strong repugnance even to things
indifferent, which had formed part of the polity or ritual of the mystical Babylon.'
3 So called because they are mostly derived from the extensive Simler Collection of Zurich,
where the Marian exiles, as Bishop Burnet says, ' were entertained both by the magistrates
and the ministers — Bullinger, Gualter, Weidner, Simler, Lavater, Gesner, and all the rest
of that body — with a tenderness and affection that engaged them to the end of their lives
to make the greatest acknowledgments possible for it.' The correspondence was published
by the Parker Society (Cambridge, 1842-47, in four vols.), in two series, the first of which
covers the reigns of Henry VIII. , Edward VI. f and Mary; the second and more important
the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1602). They include letters of most of the English Reformers
and leading bishops and divines to the Swiss Reformers, with their answers, and are noble
monuments of Christian and theological friendship.
* The Suffrage of the Divines of Great Britain concerning the Artides of the Synod of
Dort signed by them in the Year 1619. London, 1624. There is, however, at the close of
this document (p. 176) a wholesome warning 'concerning the mystery of reprobation,' that
it be 'handled sparingly and prudently,* and that 'those fearful opinions, and such as have n«
ground in the Scriptures, be carefully avoided, which tend rather unto desperation than ed*»
fication, and do bring upon some of the Reformed Churches a grievous scandal,'
§ 77. THE DOCTRINAL POSITION OF THE ANGLICAK CHURCH. 605
this : the English Reformers, being themselves bishops, retained epis-
copacy as an ancient institution of the Church catholic, but fully ad-
mitted (with the most learned fathers and schoolmen, sustained by
modern commentators and historians) the original identity of the
offices of bishop and presbyter; while the German and Swiss Ke-
formers, being only presbyters or laymen, and opposed by their bish-
ops, fell back from necessity rather than choice upon the parity of
ministers, without thereby denying the human right and relative im-
portance or expediency of episcopacy as a superintendency over equals
in rank. The more rigid among the Puritans departed from both by
attaching primary importance to matters of discipline and ritual, and
denouncing every form of government and public worship that was
not expressly sanctioned in the New Testament.
The most learned English divines before the period of the Restora-
tion, such as Cranmer, Jewel, Hooker, Field, Ussher, Hall, and Stilling-
fleet, did not hold the theory of an exclusive jure divijio episcopacy,
and fully recognized the validity of presbyterian ordination. They
preferred and defended episcopacy as the most ancient and general
form of government, best adapted for the maintenance of order and
unity ; in one word, as necessary for the well-being, but not for the
being of the Church. Oranmer invited the co-operation of Lutherans
and Calvinists even in the most important work of framing the Articles
of Religion and revising the Liturgy, without questioning their ordina-
tion ; his own views of episcopacy were so low that he declared * elec-
tion or appointment thereto sufficient* without consecration, and he way
so thoroughly Erastian that after the death of Henry he and his suf-
fragans took out fresh commissions from the new king.1 His three
successors in the primacy (Parker, Grindal, and Whitgift) did not
differ from him in principle. * Archbishop Grindal,5 says Macaulay,
* long hesitated about accepting a mitre, from dislike of what he re-
garded as the mummery of consecration. Bishop Parkhurst uttered
a fervent prayer that the Church of England would propose to her-
self the Church of Zurich as the absolute pattern of a Christian com-
1 In accordance with an act of the thirty-seventh year of Henry VIIL, which declares that
* Archhishops and the other ecclesiastical persons had no manner of jurisdiction ecclesiastical
hut by, under, and from his Royal Majesty; and that his Royal Majesty was the only supreme
head of the Church of England and Ireland, to whom, by holy Scripturea all authority and
power was wholly given,' etc.
606 THE CEEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
munity. Bishop Ponet was of opinion that the word lishop should
be abandoned to the Papists, and that the chief officers of the puri-
fied Church should be called superintendents? The nineteenth of the
Elizabethan Articles, which treats of the visible Church, says nothing
of episcopacy as a mark of the Church. The statute of the thirteenth
year of Elizabeth, cap* 12, permits ministers of the Scotch and other for-
eign Churches to exercise their ministry in England without re-ordina-
tion. After the union with Scotland the English sovereign represented
in his official character the national Churches of the two countries, and
when in Scotland, Queen Victoria takes the communion from the hands
of a Presbyterian parson. Prominent clergymen of the Church of En-
gland, such as Travers (Provost of Trinity College, Dublin), Whittingham
(Dean of Durham), Oartwright (Professor of Divinity in Cambridge,
afterwards Master of Warwick Hospital), and John Morrison (from
Scotland), had received only Presbyterian ordination in foreign Church-
es. Similar instances of Scotch, French, and Dutch Reformed ministers
who were received simply on subscribing the Articles occurred down
to the civil war. The English delegates to the Synod of Dort, which
was presided over by a presbyter, were high, dignitaries and doctors
of divinity, one of them (Carleton) a bishop, and two others (Dav-
enant and Hall) were afterwards raised to bishoprics. Archbishop
TTssher, the greatest English divine of his age, who in eighteen years
had mastered the whole mass of patristic literature, defended episco-
pacy only as a presidency of one presbyter over his peers, and de-
clared that when abroad he would take the holy communion from a
Dutch Reformed or French minister as readily as from an Episcopa-
lian clergyman at home.
But the reigns of James and Charles L form the transition. In the
heat of the Puritan controversy both parties took extreme ground,
Presbyterians and Independents as well as Episcopalians, and claimed
exclusive Scripture authority and divine right for their form of gov-
ernment Truth and error were mixed on both sides; for the primi-
tive government was neither Episcopalian nor Presbyterian nor Inde-
pendent, but apostolic; and the Apostles, as inspired and infallible
teachers and rulers of the whole Church of all ages, have and can
have no successors, as Christ himself can have none.
The doctrine of the divine and exclusive right of episcopacy was
§ 77. THE DOCTRINAL POSITION OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH. 6(XT
first intimated, in self-defense, by Bishop Bancroft, of London (in a
sermon, 1589), then taught and rigidly enforced by Archbishop Laud
(1633-1645), the most un-Protestant of English prelates,1 and was
apparently sanctioned in 1662 by the Act of Uniformity, which for-
bade any person to hold a benefice or to administer the sacraments
before he be ordained a priest by Episcopal ordination. By this cruel
Act two thousand ministers, including some of the ablest and most
worthy men in England, were expelled from office and driven into
non-conformity,
Notwithstanding this change, the Church of England has never offi-
cially and expressly pronounced on the validity or invalidity of non-
episcopal orders in other Churches; she only maintains that no one
shall officiate in her pulpits and at her altars who has not received
episcopal ordination according to the direction of the Prayer-book.2
I2ICHARD HOOKER.
The truest representative of the conservative and comprehensive
genius of Anglicanism in doctrine and polity, towards the close of
the Elizabethan period, is the < judicious Hooker' (1553-1600), who to
this day retains the respect of all parties. In his great work on the
< Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity5 he went to the root of the rising contro-
versy between Episcopacy and Puritanism, by representing the Church
as a legislative body which had the power to make and unmake insti-
tutions and rites not affecting the doctrines of salvation laid down in
the Scriptures and oecumenical creeds.
1 Laud made such a near approach to Rome that he was offered a cardinal's hat (Aug.
1633), When he first maintained, in his exercise for Bachelor of Divinity, in 1604, the doc-
trine that there could be no true Church without a bishop, he was reproved by the authorities
at Oxford, because he * cast a bone of contention between the Church of England and the
jReformed on the Continent.' But when he was in power he spared no effort to force his
theory upon reluctant Puritans in England and Presbyterians in Scotland.
8 The facts above stated are acknowledged by the best authorities of the Church of England
of all parties, such as Strype, Burnet, Lathbury, Keble, and by secular historians such as Hal-
Jam and Macaulay. See a calm and thorough argument of Prof. G. P. Fisher, The Relation
of the Church of England to the other Protestant Churches, in the * New-Englander ' for Jan-
uary, 1874, pp. 1 21-172. This article grew out of a newspaper controversy in the New York
Tribune, occasioned by the secession of Bishop Cummins after the General Conference of the
Evangelical Alliance at New York, October, 1873. This inter-denominational Conference had
the express sanction of the Archbishop of Canterbury in aletter addressed to the Dean of Canter-
bury, one of the prominent delegates. See Proceedings (published N. Y. , 1 874), p. 720. Comp.
also Dr. Washburn, Relation of the Episcopal Church to other Christian Bodies, N. Y., 1874.
608 ^SE CBEEDS Of CS&ISTENDOM.
He defends episcopacy, but without invalidating other forms of
government, or unchurching other Churches. He highly commends
Calvin's * Institutes' and £ Commentaries/ and calls him * incomparably
the wisest man that ever the French Church did enjoy.5 1 He gener-
ally agrees with his theology, at least as far as it is Augustinian, and
he clearly adopts his view of the eucharist — namely, as he expresses it,
that c Christ is personally present, albeit a part of Christ be corporally
absent/ and * that the real presence is not to be sought for in the sac-
rament (i. e., in the elements), but in the worthy receiver of the sacra-
ment.' But he keeps clear of the logical sharpness and rigor of Cal-
vinism, and subjects it to the higher test of the fathers and the early
Church.2
His respect for antiquity and his churchly conservatism gained
ground after his death in the conflict with Puritanism; and when
the Synod of Dort narrowed the Calvinism of the Eeformation to a
five-angular scholastic scheme, Arminian doctrines, in connection with
High-Church principles, spread rapidly in the Church of England.
She became, as a body, more and more exclusive, and broke off the
theological interchange and fraternal fellowship with non-episcopal
* He also says : 'Of what account the Master of Sentences [Peter Lombard] was in the
Church of Home, the same and more amongst the preachers of Reformed Churches Calvin had
purchased ; so that the perfectest divines were judged they which were skillfulest in Calvin's
writings; his hooks almost the very canon to judge hoth doctrine and discipline by.' See
Hooker's lengthy account of Calvin's life and labors in the Preface to his work on the Laws
of Ecclesiastical Polity, Vol. I. pp. 158-174, edition of Dr. John Keble.
8 Dr. Keble, who was a High Anglican or Anglo-Catholic of the Oxford school, says in the
Preface to his edition (p. xcix.) : * With regard to the points usually called Calvinistic, Hooker
undoubtedly favored the tone and language, which has since come to be characteristic of that
school, commonly adopted by those theologians to whom his education led him as guides and
models on occasions where no part of Calvinism comes expressly into debate. It is possible
that this may cause him to appear, to less profound readers, a more decided partisan of Cal-
vin than he really was. At least it is certain that on the following subjects he was himself
decidedly in favor of very considerable modifications of the Genevan theology.' Keble then
contrasts the strict Calvinism of the Lambeth Articles with the cautious predestinarianism of
Hooker as expressed in a fragment which teaches eternal election and the final perseverance
of the foreknown elect, without mentioning reprobation, and makes condemnation depend on
'the foresight of sin as the cause.' Judas went to his place, which was 'of his own proper
procurement. Devils were not ordained of God for hell-fire, but hell-fire for them ; and for
men so far as it was foreseen that men would be like them.' There are, however, as Keble
himself admits, passages in Hooker which are more strongly Calvinistic, especially on the doc-
trine of the perseverance of saints, which he considers hardly consistent with his doctrine of
universal baptismal grace. But both these doctrines were held by Augustine likewise, from
whom Hooker borrowed them.
§ 77. THE DOCTRINAL POSITION OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH. 609
Churches. But we hope the time is coming when the Christian com-
munion which characterized her formative period will be revived
under a higher and more permanent form.
NOTE. — My friend, the Rev. Dr. E. A. WASHBURN, of New York, an Episcopalian divine of
rare culture and liberality of spirit, has kindly furnished the following contribution to this
chapter, which will give the reader a broad inside view of Anglicanism under the various
phases of its historic development:
'The doctrinal system of the English Church, in its relation to other Reformed commu-
nions, especially needs a historic treatment ; and the want of this has led to grave mistakes,
alike by Protestant critics and Anglo-Catholic defenders. It was one in its positive prin-
ciples, as opposed to the dogmatic falsehoods of Rome, with the great bodies of the Conti-
nental Reformation ; yet it grew as a national Church, while those were more fully shaped
by the theology of their leaders — Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. This fact is the key of its
history. England felt the same influences, religious and social, that awakened Europe, but
its ideas were not borrowed from abroad ; it only completed the growth begun in the day of
Wyclif. Its earliest step was thus a national one. Nor was this, as has been proved by its
latest historians from the record, the act of Henry VIH. ; for before his quarrel the Parlia-
ment annulled forever, by its own decree, the supremacy of Rome. It could not be expected
that during his reign the standard of doctrine should be greatly changed; and it should be
remembered that Luther himself renounced only by degrees the idea of Papal authority. The
"Articles devised to establish Christian Quietness," probably the original of the later Cot-
ton MSS., and the "Institution of a Christian Man" following it in 1537, show that the dog-
ma of the mass, the seven sacraments, intercessory prayers for the dead, and reverence of the
Virgin and saints as mediators, remained. It is worth noting, however, that the "Erudition"
in 1543 gives signs of change, as the " corporal" presence is there only the "very body, "and
the idea of special intercession is modified to prayer "for the universal congregation of Chris-
tian people, quick and dead. " But the next reign proves that the act of national freedom held
in solution the whole result. Ultramontanism meant then, as now, not only the feudal head-
ship of Rome, but its scholastic and priestly system. The Reformation, ripened in the minds
of Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, and other devout thinkers, bore its frait in the revised Liturgy
and Articles ; nor can any thing be clearer than the doctrinal standard of the Church, if we
trace it with just historic criticism to the time when these were fixed.
* The Articles ask our first study. It is plain that the foundation-truths of the Reformation —
justification by faith, the supremacy and sufficiency of written Scripture, the fallibility of even
general councils— are its basis. Yet it is just as plain that in regard of the specific points of
theology, which were the root of discord in the Continental Churches, as election, predestina-
tion, reprobation, perseverance, and the rest, these Articles speak in a much more moderate
tone. It is from a narrow study of that age that they have been called articles of compromise
between a Calvinistic and Arminian party. There were some of extreme views, as the Lam-
beth Articles prove, but they did not represent the body. The English Reformers had been
bred, like the great Genevan, in the school of the greater Augustine ; and his richer, more
ethical spirit appears in not only the Articles, but in the writings of well-nigh all from Hooper
or Whitgift to Hooker. There was the friendliest intercourse between them and the divines
of the Continent. Melanchthon, Calvin, Bucer were consulted in their common work. But
the unity of the national Church, not the system of a school, was uppermost ; and we may
write the character of them all in the words of the biographer of Field, that " in points of ex-
treme difficulty he did not think fit to be so positive in defining as to turn matters of opinion
into matters of faith."
* We may thus learn the structure of the liturgical system. The English Reformers aimed
not to create a new, but to reform the historic Church ; and therefore they kept the ritual with
the episcopate, because they were institutions rooted in the soil. They did not unchurch the
bodies of the Continent, which grew under quite other conditions. No theory of an exclusive
Anglicanism, as based on the episcopate and general councils, was held by them. Such a view
is wholly contradictory to their own Articles. But the historic character of the Church gave it
a positive relation to the past ; and they sought to adhere to primitive usage as the basis of his-
toric unity. In this revision, therefore, they weeded out all Romish errors, the mass, the five
added sacraments, the legends of saints, and superstitious rites ; but they kept the ancient Apos-
tles' Creed and the Nicene in the forefront of the service, the sacramental offices, the festivals
and fasts relating to Christ or Apostles with whatever they thought pure. Such a work could
610 THE CREEDS Off CHRISTENDOM.
not be perfect, and it is false either to think it so or to judge it save by its time. There are
archaic forms in these offices which, retain some ideas of a scholastic theology. The view of
regeneration in the baptismal service, decried to-day as Romish, can be found by any scholar
in Melanchthon or in Bullinger's Decades. We may see in some of the phrases of the commun-
ion office the idea of more than a purely spiritual participation, yet the view is almost identical
with that of Calvin. The dogma of the mass had been renounced, but the Aristotelian notions
of spirit and body were still embodied in the philosophy of the time. The absolution in the
office for the sick, and like features, have been magnified into "Romanizing germs" on one
side and Catholic verities on another. The Athanasian Creed, revered by all the Reformers,
was retained, yet not as that of Nice in the body of the worship ; and it was wisely excluded
by the American revisers, as the English Church will by-and-by displace it, because a better
criticism shows it to be the metaphysical deposit of a later time, un-cathplic in descent or
structure. Such is the rule by which we are to know the unity of the English system. The
satire, so often repeated since Chatham, that the Church has a " Popish Liturgy and Calvin-
istic Articles," is as ignorant as it is unjust. All liturgical formularies need revision ; but such
a task must be judged by the standard of the Articles, the whole tenor of the Prayer-book, and
the known principles of the men. In the same way we learn their view of the Episcopate.
Not one leading divine from Hooper to Hooker claimed any ground beyond the fact of prim-
itive and historic usage ; and Whitgift, the typical High-Churchman of the Elizabethan time,
in reply to the charge of Cartwright against prelacy as unscriptural, took the ground that to
hold it ** of necessity to have the same kind of government as in the Apostles1 time, and ex-
pressed in Scripture," is a "rotten pillar." The Puritan of that day was as narrow as the
narrow Churchman of our own.
* This historic sketch of the English Reformation explains its whole character. It had
in it varied elements, but by no means contradictory. Had not other influences dwarfed
its design, it would have done much to harmonize the communions of Protestantism, to
blend the new life with a sober reverence for the historic past. Lutheranism and Calvin-
ism did each its part in the development of a profound theology. The English Church
had a more comprehensive doctrine and a more conservative order. It placed the simple
Apostles1 Creed above all theological confessions as its basis, and a practical system above the
subtleties of controversy. But its defect lay in the policy which sought uniformity instead
of a large unity; and the loss of the conscientious men who left the national Church gave its
ecclesiastical element an undue growth. Yet it has retained throughout much of its compre-
hensiveness. It has had many schools of thought, but none has ruled it. Calvinism, al-
though shorn of its early strength, has had always adherents, from the saintly Leighton to
Toplady and Venn. The Arminian doctrine entered early from Holland, and in the visit of
the divines sent by James to the Synod of Dort, among whom were Hall and Davenant, we have
the early traces of the change. 'Davenant was nominally against the Remonstrants, but the
* Suffrages " prove already the milder tone of the English theology. It is with Laud that the sys-
tem gained strong ground, yet it never led to such quarrels as in the land of Grotius ; it repre-
sented the growing dislike of a harsh supralapsarianism and the mild spirit of scholars like
Jeremy Taylor. The criticism has often been made that Armirdanism is more akin to a
High-Church system, because it teaches that divine grace is conditioned by works ; but if so,
perhaps it shows, as in the case of Jansenism, that a metaphysical creed, in losing sight of the
moral side of its own truth, will always drive men to its opposite. The English theology
of the next period has the like variety. It had its divines of rich learning — Bramhall,
Cosin, and others — inclined to a stricter view of the sacraments and ministry than the Re-
formers ; yet it is mere exaggeration to call them the Anglo-Catholic fathers, as if they were
the exponents of the whole Church. They belong to one school of their time. Nor is it a
less mistake to judge from their opposition, as members of the national Church, to the Dis-
senters, that they unchurched the Continental Protestants. Bramhall held an episcopate to
be of the JEcclesia integra, not vera; and Morton, while bitter towards the Presbyterians, is
"not so uncharitable" towards foreign Reformed bodies " as to censure them for no Churches,
for that which is their infelicity, not their fault." Chillingworth and Hales are leaders in this
period of a more liberal thought. The Cambridge school, which a modern critic calls the
herald of broad Churchmanship, begins here with Smith and Whichcote. The theology of
England passed into a still more comprehensive growth. Its larger conflict with Deism took
it out of fiie guerrilla war of the past into the field of Biblical criticism, Christian evidence, and
history. No party wholly represents it. Such different minds as Tillotson and Waterland,
Cudworth and Paley, Arnold and Eeble have been of the same communion. Its successive
movements have stirred, yet not rent it. The Methodist revival came from the Arminian
Wesley, and the wave of spiritual life left its true influence, although a cold establishment pol-
icy ignored it. The evangelical movement was Calvinistic, yet it was mainly the protest of
§ 78. THE DOCTRINAL FORMULAS OF HENRY VIH. 611
devout men like Wilberforce against formalism, and did little for theological growth. Our time
has been busy with the Oxford divinity, which has sought to build a theory of Anglo-Cathol-
uusm on the basis of an exclusive episcopal succession, a Nicene authority concurrent with
fecnpture, and a priesthood dispensing grace through the sacraments. It will end as the the-
ory ot a passing school. Our sketch will show on what grounds we judge it a contradiction
to the standards of the body, the consensus of its fathers down to Hooker, and an utter misstate-
ment of the historic position of the Church of England. It may be hoped that the long strife
will lead to a better understanding of its relation to other Reformed communions and to its
place in the common work for the unity of Christendom.'
§ 78. THE DOOTEESTAL FORMULAS OF HENRY VIII.
THE TEN ARTICLES.
The first doctrinal deliverance of the Church of England after the
rupture with Koine is contained in the TEN ARTICLES of 1536, devised
by Henry VIIL (who styles himself in the preface < by the grace of
God king of England and of France, defender of the faith, lord of
Ireland, and in earth supreme head of the Church of England3), and
approved by convocation.1 They are essentially Eomish, with the Pope
left out in the cold. They can not even be called a compromise be-
tween the advocates of the 'old learning,' headed by Gardiner (Bishop
of Winchester from 1531), and of the < new learning,3 headed by Cran-
mer (Archbishop of Canterbury from March, 1533). Their chief ob-
ject, according to the preface, was to secure by royal authority unity
and concord in religious opinions, and to * repress5 and * utterly extin-
guish5 all dissent and discord touching the same. They were, in the
language of Foxe, intended for c weaklings newly weaned from their
mother's milk of Rome.' They assert (1) the binding authority of the
Bible, the three oecumenical creeds, and the first four oecumenical
councils; (2) the necessity of baptism for salvation, even in the case
of infants;2 (3) the sacrament of penance, with confession and abso-
lution, which are declared ' expedient and necessary ;' (4) the substan-
1 First printed by Thomas Berthelet, under the title 'Articles ] devised by the Kinges
Highnes Majestic, | to stablyshe Christen quietnes and unitie | amonge us, | and | to avoyde
contentious opinions, | which articles be also approved | by the consent and determination,
of the hole | clergie of this realme. | Anno M.D.XXXVL' They are given by Euller, Baraet,
(Addenda), Collier, and Hardwick (Appendix I). In the Cotton MS. the title is, * Articles
about Religion, set out by the Convocation, and published by the King's authority.' It is im-
possible to determine how far the Articles are the product of the king (who in his own con-
ceit was fully equal to any task in theology as well as Church government), and how far the
product of his bishops and other clergy. See Hardwick, pp. 40 sqq.
3 Art. II. says that ' infants ought to be baptized ;' that, dying in infancy, they * shall un-
doubtedly be saved thereby, and else not;1 that the opinions of Anabaptists and Pelagians are
'detestable heresies, and utterly to be condemned/
612 THE CREEDS OF CHEISTENDOM.
tial, real, corporal presence of Christ's body and blood under the
form of bread and wine in the eucharist; (5) justification by faith,
joined with charity and obedience ; (6) the use of images in church-
es; (7) the honoring of saints and the Yirgin Mary; (8) the invoca-
tion of saints ; (9) the observance of various rites and ceremonies as
good and laudable, such as clerical vestments, sprinkling of holy water,
bearing of candles on Candlemas-day, giving of ashes on Ash-Wednes-
day ; (10) the doctrine of purgatory, and prayers for the dead in pur-
gatory.
THE BISHOPS^ BOOK AND THE KING9S BOOK.1
These Articles were virtually, though not legally, superseded by the
* Bishops5 Book,3 or the * Institution of a Christian Man,' drawn up
by a Committee of Prelates, 1537, but never sanctioned by the king.
It contains an Exposition of the Creed, the Seven Sacraments, the Ten
Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Ave Maria, and a discussion of
the disputed doctrines of justification and purgatory, and the human
origin of the papacy. It marks a little progress, which must be traced
to the influence of Cranmer and Ridley, bat it was superseded by a
reactionary revision called the ' King's Book/ or the * Necessary Doc-
trine and Erudition for any Christian Man,' sanctioned by Convoca-
tion, and set forth by royal mandate in 1543, when Gardiner and the
Eomish party were in the ascendant.
THE THIRTEEN ARTICLES.
During the negotiations with the Lutheran divines (1535-1538),
held partly at Wittenberg, partly at Lambeth, an agreement con-
sisting of THIRTEEN' ARTICLES was drawn up in Latin, at London, in
the summer of 1538, which did not receive the sanction of the king,
but was made use of in the following reign as a basis of several of
the Forty-two Articles. They have been recently discovered in their
collected form, by Dr. Jenkyns, among the manuscripts of Archbishop
Cranmer in the State Paper Office.2 They treat of the Divine Unity
1 Printed in Formularies of Faith put forth by Authority during the Reign of Henry VIIJ.
Oxford, 1 825.
9 They are printed in Jenkyns's Remains of Cranmer (1833), Vol. IV. pp. 273 sqq. ; in Cox'a
(Parker Soc.) edition of Cranmer's Works (1846), Vol. II. pp. 472-480 ; and in Hardwick's
History of the Articles, Append. II. pp. 261-273. Six of these thirteen Articles were previ-
ously published by Strype and Burnet, but with a false date (1540) and considerable variations.
§ 79. THE EDWAEDINE ARTICLES, 1553.
and Trinity, Original Sin, the Two Natures of Christ, Justification, the
Church, Baptism, the Eucharist, Penitence, the Use of the Sacraments,
the Ministers of the Church, Ecclesiastical Rites, Civil Affairs, the Res-
urrection and Final Judgment. They are based upon the Augsburg
Confession, some passages being almost literally copied from the same.1
THE SIX ARTICLES.
The Thirteen Articles remained a dead letter in the reign of Henry.
He broke off all connection with the Lutherans, and issued in 1539,
under the influence of Gardiner and the Romish party, and in spite
of the protest of Cranmer, the monstrous statute of the Six ARTICLES,
'for the abolishing of Diversity of Opinions.3 They are justly called
the * bloody' Articles, and a 'whip with six strings.5 They bore se-
verely not only upon the views of the Anabaptists and all radical
Protestants, who in derision were called * Gospellers,3 but also upon
the previous negotiations with the Lutherans. After the burning of
some Dissenters the Articles were somewhat checked in their opera-
tion, but remained legally in force till the death of the king, who
grew more and more despotic, and prohibited (in 1542) Tyndale's
'false translation' of the Bible, and even the reading of the New
Testament in English to all women, artificers, laborers, and husband-
men.
The Six Articles imposed upon all Englishmen a belief (1) in tran-
substantiation, (2) the needlessness of communion in both kinds, (3) in
clerical celibacy, (4) the obligation of vows of chastity or widowhood,
(5) the necessity of private masses, (6) auricular confession. Here we
have some of the most obnoxious features of Romanism. Whoever
denied transubstantiation was to be burned at the stake ; dissent from
any of the other Articles was to be punished by imprisonment, con-
fiscation of goods, or death, according to the degree of guilt.
§ 79. THE EDWAEDINE ARTICLES. A.D. 1553.
With the accession of Edward VI. (Jan. 28, 1547) Cranmer and the
reform party gained the controlling influence. The Six Articles were
abolished. The First Prayer-Book of Edward VI. was prepared aud
1 See the comparison in Hardwick, pp. 62 sqq.
6U THE CftEEDS OF CHRISTElJDOM.
set forth (1549), and a few years afterwards the Second, with sundry
changes (1552).
The reformation of worship was followed by that of doctrine. Vor
some time Oranmer entertained the noble but premature idea of fram-
ing, with the aid of the German and Swiss Reformers, an evangelical
catholic creed, which should embrace * all the heads of ecclesiastical
doctrine,5 especially an adjustment of the controversy on the eucharist,
and serve as a protest to the Council of Trent, and as a bond of union
among the Protestant Churches.1
This project was reluctantly abandoned in favor of a purely En-
glish formula of public doctrine, the FOBTT-TWO ABTTCLES OF RELIGION.
They were begun by Cranmer in 1549, subjected to several revisions,
completed in November, 1552, and published in 1553, together with
a short Catechism, by ' royal authority/ and with the approval of <a
Synod (Convocation) at London.52 It is, however, a matter of dispute
whether they received the formal sanction of Convocation, or were
circulated on the sole authority of the royal council during the brief
reign of Edward (who died July 6, 1553).3 The chief title to the
authorship of the Articles, as well as of the revised Liturgy, belongs
to Cranmer; it is impossible to determine how much is due to his
fellow-Reformers — * bishops and other learned men' — and the foreign
divines then residing in England, to whom the drafts were submitted,
or whose advice was solicited.4
The Edwardine Articles are essentially the same as the Thirty-
1 See Cranmer's letters of invitation to Calvin, Bullinger, and Melanchthon, in Cox's edition
of Cranmer's Works, VoL II. pp. 431-433.
8 'ArticvM de quibus in Synodo Londinensi, A.D. M.D.LIL ad tollendam opinionum dis-
tensionem et consensum verce religionis jirmandum. inter ISpiscopos et alios Eruditos Viros con-
veneraC 'Articles agreed on by the Bishopes, and other learned menne in the Synode at
London, in the yere of our Lorde Godde, M.D.LIL, for the auoiding of controuersie in opin-
ions, and the establishment of a godlie Concorde, in certeine matters of Religion.* They are
printed in Hardwick, Append. III. pp. 277-333, in Latin and English, and in parallel col-
nmns with the Elizabethan Articles. The Latin text is also given by Niemeyer, pp. 592-600.
On minor points concerning their origin, comp. Hardwick, pp. 73 sqq.
3 Palmer, Bnrnet, and others maintain the latter ; Hardwick (p. 107), the former.
* John Knox and the other royal chaplains were also consulted ; see Lorimer, 1. c. pp. 126
sqq. Knox did not object to the doctrines of the Articles, but to the rubric on kneeling in
the eucharistic service of the Liturgy, and his opposition led to the 'Declaration on Kneel-
tag/ which is a strong protest against nbiqnitarianism and any idolatrous veneration of the
^cramental elements. It was inserted as a rubric by order of Council in 1552, was omitted
in 1559, and restored in 1662.
§ 80. THE ELIZABETHAN ABTICLES, 1563 AND 1571. 615
nine, with the exception of a few (three of them borrowed from the
Augsburg Confession), which were omitted in the Elizabethan revis-
ion— namely, one on the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (Art
XVI.); one on the obligation of keeping the moral commandments
— against antinomianism — (XIX.) ; one on the resurrection of the
dead (XXXIX.) ; one on the state of the soul after death — against the
Anabaptist notion of the psychopannychia — (XL.); one against the
millenarians (XLI.);1 and one against the doctrine of universal sal-
vation (XLIL).2 A clause in the article on Christ's descent into
Hades (Art. III.),3 and a strong protest against the ubiquity of Christ's
body, and * the real and bodily presence of Christ's flesh and blood in
the sacrament of the Lord's Supper' (in Art. XXIX.), were likewise
omitted.
§ 80. THE ELIZABETHAN ARTICLES. A.D. 1563 AND 1571.
After the temporary suppression of Protestantism under Queen
Mary, the Reformed hierarchy, Liturgy, and Articles of Religion were
permanently restored, with a number of changes, by Queen Elizabeth.
In 1559, Archbishop Parker, with the other prelates, set forth, as a
provisional test of orthodoxy, ELEVEN ABTICLES, taken in part from
those of 1553, but differing in form and avoiding controverted topics.4
They were superseded by the Thirty-nine Articles.
THE LATIN EDITION, 1563.
At the first meeting of the two Convocations, which were summoned
by Elizabeth in January, 1563, Parker submitted a revision of the
Latin Articles of 1553, prepared by him with the aid of Bishop Cox
1 * Qui Millenariorum fdbulam revocare conantur, sacris literis adversantur, et in Judaica
deliramenta sese prcedpitant (cast themselves headlong into a Juishe dotage).' Comp. the
Augshurg Confession, Art. XVII., where the Anabaptists and others are condemned for
teaching the final salvation of condemned men and devils, and the Jewish opinions of the
millennium.
8 lHi quoque damnations diffni sunt, qui conantur hodie perniciosam opinionem instaurare,
quod omnes, quantumois impii, servandi sunt tandem, cum dqfinito tempore ajustitia divina
mra-rtfte ft A sisf-m-fssia rif/imfjfff J.UAVttnt*
3 'Nam corpus [Chrtoti] usque ad resurrectionem in sepulchrojacuit, Spiritus ab itto emissus
(his ghost departing from him) cum spiritibus gui in carcere sive in inferno detinebantur, fuit,
illisque prazdicavit, quemadmodum testatur Petri locus. (At suo ad inferos descensu nuttos a
carceribus aut tormentis liberavit Christus Dominus.)*
* They are printed hy Hardwick in Append. IV. pp. 337-339.
VOL. L— E B
616 THE CREEDS CXE1 CHRISTENDOM.
of Ely> Bishop Guest of Rochester, and others, who had already taken
an active part in the revision of the Prayer-book.1 After an examina-
tion by both houses, the Articles, reduced to the number of thirty-
nine, were ratified and signed by the Bishops and the members of the
lower house, and published by the royal press, 1563.
It is stated that Elizabeth ' diligently read and sifted' the document
before giving her assent. To her influence must probably be traced
two characteristic changes of the printed copy as compared with the
Parker MS. — namely, the insertion of the famous clause in Art. XX.,
affirming the authority of the Church in matters of faith — and the
omission of Art. XXIX., which denies that the unworthy communi-
cants partake of the body and blood of Christ.3 The latter Articlej
however, was restored by the Bishops, May 11, 1571, and appears in
all the printed copies since that time, both English and Latin.
THE ENGLISH EDITION, 1571.
The authorized English text was adopted by Convocation in 1571,
and issued under the editorial care of Bishop Jewel of Salesbury. It
presents sundry variations from the Latin edition of 1563. Both edi-
tions are considered equally authoritative and mutually explanatory.3
1 A manuscript copy of this revision, with numerous corrections and autograph signatures
of 'Matthssus Cantuar/ (Parker), and other prelates (including some of the northern province),
is preserved among the Parker MSS. in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, and was published
by Dr. Lamb in 1829. The handwriting (as Mr. Lewis, the librarian, informed me when
mere on a visit in July, 1875) is probably Jocelin's, the secretary of Parker. The copy
contains also the older Articles Nos. 40-42, but marked by a red line as to be omitted. This
copy is probably the same which Parker submitted to Convocation, but it presents several
variations (especially in Art. XX.) from the copy of the Convocation records. Comp.
JECardwick, pp. 125 and 135 sqq.
8 Hardwick, pp. 143 sqq.
3 This is the view of Burnet and Waterland, adopted by Hardwick, p. 1 58. Watarland says
(Works, Vol. II pp. 316, 31 7) : ' As to the Articles, English and Latin, I may just observe for
the sake of such readers as are less acquainted with these things : first, that the Articles were
passed, recorded, and ratified in the year 1562 [1563], and in Latin only. Secondly, fasti
those Latin Articles were revised and corrected by the convocation of 1571. Thirdly, that an
authentic English translation was then made of the Latin Articles by the same convocation,
and the Latin and English adjusted as nearly as possible. Fourthly, that the Articles thus
perfected in both languages were published the same year, and by the royal authority. Fifthly,
subscription was required the same year to the English Articles, called the Articles of 1562,
by the famous act of the 13th of Elizabeth.— These things considered, I might justly say
with Bishop Burnet, that the Latin and English are both equally authenticaL Thus much,
however, I may certainly infer, that if in any places the English version be ambiguous, where
the Latin original is clear and determinate, the Latin ought to fix the more doubtful sense
§ 80. THE ELIZABETHAN AETICLES, 1563 AND 1571.
THE EOTAL DEGLABATION OF 1628.
After the Synod of Dort, to which James I. sent a strong delega-
tion, the Arminian controversy spread in England, and caused such
an agitation that the king, who, according to his own estimate and
that of his flatterers, was equal to Solomon in wisdom, ordered Arch-
bishop Abbot (Aug. 4, 1622) to prohibit the lower clergy from preach-
ing on the five points.1 Charles L, in concert with Archbishop Laud
(who sympathized with Arminianism), issued a Proclamation (1626)
of similar import, deploring the prevalence of theological dissension,
and threatening to visit with severe penalties those clergymen who
should raise, publish, or maintain opinions not clearly warranted by
the formularies of the Church.
As this proclamation did not silence the controversy, Charles was
advised by Laud to order the republication of the Thirty-nine Articles
with a Preface regulating the interpretation of the same. This Pref-
ace, called * His Majesty's Declaration,5 was issued in 1628, and has
ever since accompanied the English editions of the Articles.2 Its
object was to check Calvinism (although it is not named), and the quin-
quarticular controversy ('all further curious search' on < those curious
points in which the present differences lie'), and to restrict theological
opinions to the * literal and grammatical sense' of the Articles.3 It
of the other (as also vice versa), it being evident that the Convocation, Queen, and Parlia-
ment intended the same sense in both.'
1 One of the directions reads: ' That no preacher of what title soever, under the degree of a
Bishop, or Dean at least, do from henceforth presume to preach in any popular auditory the
deep points of predestination, election, reprobation, or the universality, efficacy, resistibility or
irresistibility of divine grace; but leave those themes to be handled by learned men, and that
moderately and modestly, by way of use and application, rather than by way of positive doc-
trine, as being fitter for the schools and Universities than for simple auditories.' — Wilkins,
Vol. IV. p. 465 ; Hardwick, p. 202.
* It disappeared, of course, in the American editions. It is printed in VoL HE. p. 486.
3 'No man shall either print or preach or draw the Article* [the previous sentence speaks
of the Articles generally, perhaps Art. XVII. on predestination is meant particularly] * aside
any way, but shall submit to it in the plain and full meaning thereof; and shall not put hi»
own sense or comment to be the meaning of the Article, but shall take it in the literal and
grammatical sense.' In a * Declaration' of Charles on the dissolution of Parliament (March
10, 1628), he says, concerning his intention in issuing the Declaration before the Articles:
'We did tte and restrain all opinions to the sense of these Articles that nothing might be left
to fancies and invocations' [probably an error for * innovations ']. * For we call God to record,
before whom we stand, that it is, and always hath been, our chief heart's desire, to be found
worthy of that title, which we account the most glorious in all our crown, Defender of the
/— Hardwick, p. 206.
618 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
was greeted by Arminians and High-Churchmen, who praise its mod<
eration,1 but was resisted by Calvinists and the Puritan party then
prevailing in the House of Commons, which declared its determina-
tion to suppress both * Popery and Arminianism.3 2 The subsequent
history of England has shown how little royal and parliamentary
proclamations and prohibitions avail against the irresistible force of
ideas and the progress of theology.
SUBSCRIPTION.
Queen Elizabeth was at first opposed to any action of Parliament
on questions of religious doctrine, which she regarded as the highest
department of her own royal supremacy ; but in May, 1571, she was
forced by her council, in view of popish agitations, to give her assent
to a bill of Parliament which required all priests and teachers of re'
ligion to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles.3
Subscription was first rigidly enforced by Archbishop Whitgift (in
1584, which is noted as ' the woful year of subscription5), and by Ban-
croft (1604).
This test of orthodoxy was even applied to academical students. At
Oxford a decree of Convocation, in 15T3, required students to sub
1 Hardwick says (p. 205) : * A document more sober and conciliatory could not well have
been devised/ Bishop Forbes goes further, and thinks that it was *the enunciation of the
Catholic sense of the Articles,' and that Newman's Tract XG. and Pusey's Irenicon are
* legitimate outcomes of the King's Declaration' (L c. Vol. I. p. xi.).
* The House passed the following vote and manifesto on the royal Declaration: * We, the
Commons in Parliament assembled, do claim, protest, and avow for truth, the sense of the
Articles of Religion which were established by Parliament in the thirteenth year of our late
Queen Elizabeth, which by the public act of the Church of England, and by the general and
current expositions of the writers of our Church, have been delivered unto us. And we reject
the sense of the Jesuits and Arminians, and all others, wherein they differ from us.' — Hard-
wick, p. 206.
3 Stat. 13 Eliz. c. 12. It enacts *by the authority of the present Parliament, that every
p«rson under the degree of a bishop, which doth or shall pretend to be a priest or minister of
God's holy Word and Sacraments, by reason of any other form of institution, consecration, or
ordering, than the form set forth by Parliament in the time of the late King of most worthy
memory, King Edward the Sixth, or now used, . . . shall . . . declare his assent, and sub-
scribe to all the Articles of Religion, which only concern the confession of the true Christian
faith and the doctrine of the sacraments comprised in a book entitled Articles, ... put
forth by the Queen's authority.* The subscription to the Articles was urged by the Puri-
tanic party in Parliament in opposition to Romanism. See Hardwick, pp. 1 50 sq. The word-
ing of the statute was made use of to confine assent to the doctrinal Articles (' which only
concern,' etc.), and to relieve the conscience of the Puritans who objected to the royal
supremacy, the surplice, and other 'defiled robes of Antichrist*
§ 80. THE ELIZABETHAN ARTICLES, 1563 AND 1571.
scribe before taking their degrees, and in 1576 this requirement was
extended to students above sixteen years of age on their admission.
At Cambridge the law was less rigid.
The Act of Uniformity under Charles II. imposed with more strin-
gency than ever subscription on the clergy and every head of a col-
lege. But the Toleration Act of William and Mary gave some relief
by exempting dissenting ministers from subscribing to Arts. XXXTV-
XXXVI. and a portion of XXVII. Subsequent attempts to relax or
abolish subscription resulted at last in the University Tests Act of
1871, by which 'no one, at Oxford, Cambridge, or Durham, in order
to take a degree, except in divinity, or to exercise any right of grad-
uates, can be required to make any profession of faith.7 1
EELATIOET TO THE EDWAKDINE ARTICLES.
The Elizabethan Articles differ from the Edwardine Articles, be-
sides minor verbal alterations —
(1.) In the omission of seven Articles (Edwardine X., XVI., XIX.,
XXXIX. to XLIL). The last four of them reject certain Anabaptist
doctrines, which had in the mean time disappeared or lost their
importance.2 Art. XIX. of the old series, touching the obligation
of the moral law, was transferred in substance to Art. VII. of the
new series.
(2.) In the addition of four Articles, viz. : On the Holy Ghost (Eliz.
V.) ; on good works (XII.) ; on the participation of the wicked in the
eucharist (XXIX.) ; on communion in both kinds (XXX.).
(3.) In the partial curtailment or amplification of seventeen Articles.
Among the amplifications are to be noticed the list of Canonical and
Apocryphal Books (VI.), and of the Homilies (XXXV.) ; the restric-
tion of the number of sacraments to two (XXV.) ; the condemnation
of transubstantiation, and the declaration of the spiritual nature of
Christ's presence (XX V 111.) ; the disapproval of worship in a foreign
tongue (XXIV.); the more complete approval of infant baptism
(XXVIL), and clerical marriage (XXXIL).
1 The various acts enforcing and relaxing subscription are conveniently collected in the
Prayer-Book Interleaved, London, 7th ed. 1873, pp. 360 sqq. See also chap. xi. of Hard-
wick's History of the Article*.
'See p. 615.
620
THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
The difference of the two series, and their relation to the Thirteen
Articles, will be more readily seen from the following table :
THIRTEEN ARTICLES.
1588.
1. De TJnitate Dei et Tri-
nitate Personarum.
2. De Peccato Original!
3. De duabus Christ! Na-
turis.
4. De Justificatione.
5. De Ecclesia.
6. De Baptismo.
7. De Eucharistia.
8. De Pcenitentia.
9. De Sacramentorum
Hsu.
10. De Mnistris Eccle-
siae.
11. De Ritibus Ecclesias-
ticls.
12. De Rebus Civilibus.
13. De Corporum Resur-
rectione et Judicio Extre-
me.
[This order follows, as
far as it goes, the order of
the doctrinal articles of
the Augsburg Confession.]
FORTY-TWO ARTICLES.
1553.
1. Of faith in the holie
Trinitie.
2. That the worde, or
Sonne of God, was made a
very man.
3. Of the goying doime
of Christe into Helle.
4. The Resurrection ctf
Christe.
5. The doctrine of holie
Scripture is sufficient to
Saluation.
6. The olde Testamente
is iiot to be refused.
7. Vie three Credes.
8. Oi originall or birthe
sinne.
9. Of free wille.
10. Of Grace.
11. Of the Justification
of manne.
12. Workes before Justi-
fication.
13. Workes of Superero-
gation.
14. No man is without
sinne, but Christe alone.
15. Of sinne against the
holie Ghoste.
16. Blasphemie against
the holie Ghoste.
17. Of predestination and
election.
18. We must trusteto ob-
teine eternal salvation onely
by the name of Christ.
19. All men are bound to
kepe the moral commaund-
ementes of the Lawe.
20. Of the Church.
21. Of the aucthoritie of
the Churche.
22. Of the aucthoritie of
General Counsailes.
ARTICLES.
1571.
1. Of Faith in the Holy
Trinity.
2. Of Christ the Son of
God, which was made very
man.
3. Of the Going down of
Christ into Hell.
4. Of the Resurrection of
Christ.
5. Of the Holy Ghost
6. Of the Sufficiency of
the Holy Scripture for Sal-
vation.
7. Of the Old Testament.
8. Of the Three Creeds.
9. Of Original or Birth
Sin.
10. Of Free Will.
11. Of the Justification
of man.
12. Of Good Works.
13. Of Works before Jus-
tification.
14. Of Works of Super-
erogation.
15. Of Christ alone with-
out sin.
16. Of Sin after Baptism.
17. Of Predestination and
Election.
18. Of obtaining Salva-
tion by the name of Christ.
19. Of the Church.
20. Of the Authority of
the Church.
21. Of the Authority of
General Councils.
§ 8G. THE ELIZABETHAJS ARTICLES, 1563 AND 1571.
621
23. OfPurgatorie.
24. No manne maie min-
ister in the Congregation
except he be called.
J5. Menne must speake
in the Congregation in
soche toying as the people
understandeth.
26. Of the Sacramentes.
27. The wickednesse of
the Ministres dooeth not
take awaie the effectuall
operation of Goddes ordi-
nances.
28. Of Baptisme.
29. Of theLordes Supper.
30. Of the peifeicte obla-
cion of Christe made upon
the crosse.
81. The state of single
life is commaunded to no
man by the worde of God.
32. Excommunicate per-
sones are to bee auoided.
33. Tradicions of the
Churche.
34. Homelies.
35. Of the booke of
Praiers and Ceremonies of
the Churche of England.
36. Of Ciuile Magistrates.
37. Cbristien mennes
gooddes are not commune.
38. Christien menne maie
take an oath.
B9. The Resurrection of
the dead is not yeat brought
40. The soulles of them
that departs this life doe
neither die with the bodies
nor sleep idlie.
41. Heretickes called Mil-
lenaril
42. All men shall not bee
laued at the length.
22. Of Purgatory.
23. Of Mnistering in the
Congregation.
24. Of Speaking in the
Congregation in such a
tongue as the people un-
derstandeth.
25. Of the Sacraments.
26. Of the Unworthiness
of Ministers which hinder
not the effect of the Sacra-
ments.
27. Of Baptism.
28. Of the Lord's Supper.
29. Of the Wicked which
eat not the Body of Christ in
the use of the Lord's Supper.
30. Of Both Kinds.
81. Of the one Oblation
of Christ finished upop the
cross.
32. Of the Marriage of
33. t»f Excommunicate
Personi, how they are to
be avoided.
34. Of the Traditions of
the Church.
35. Of Homilies.
36. Of Consecrating of
Bishops and Ministers.
37. Of Civil Magistrates.
38. Of Christian men'*
goods, which are not com-
mon.
39. Of a Christian mail's
oath.
The Ratification,
622 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
§ 81. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ARTICLES.
The theological interpretation of the Articles by English writers
has been mostly conducted in a controversial rather than an historical
spirit, and accommodated to a particular school or party. Moderate
High -Churchmen and Arminians, who dislike Calvinism, represent
them as purely Lutheran ; l Anglo-Catholics and Tractarians, who abhor
both Lutheranisin and Calvinism, endeavor to conform them as much
as possible to the contemporary decrees of the Council of Trent;2 Cal-
vinistic and evangelical Low-Churchmen find in them substantially
their own creed.3 Continental historians, both Protestant and Catholic,
rank the Church of England among the Reformed Churches as dis-
tinct from the Lutheran, and her Articles are found in every collec-
tion of Eeformed Confessions.4
The Articles must be understood in their natural grammatical and
historical sense, from the stand-point and genius of the Eef ormation,
the public and private writings of their compilers and earliest ex-
pounders. In doubtful cases we may consult the Homilies, the Cate-
chism, the several revisions of the Prayer-book, the Canons, and other
contemporary documents bearing on the reformation of doctrine and
discipline in the Church of England.
In a preceding section we have endeavored to give the historical key
for the understanding of the doctrinal character of the English Arti-
cles. A closer examination will lead us to the following conclusions :
1. The Articles are Catholic in the oecumenical doctrines of the
Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, like all the Protestant Confessions
of the Reformation period; and they state those doctrines partly ID
the very words of two Lutheran documents, viz., the Augsburg Con-
fession and the Wiirtemberg Confession.
1 So Archbishop Laurence, of Cashel, and Hardwick, in their learned works on the Articles.
* Newman, Pusey, Forbes. Archbishop Laud had prepared the way for this Bomanizing
interpretation.
3 Even the Puritans accepted the doctrinal Articles, and the Westminster Assembly first
made them the basis of its Calvinistic Confession.
* 3?rom the Corpus et Syntagma down to the collections of Niemeyer and Bockel. The
Roman Catholic Mohler likewise numbers the Articles among the Reformed (Calvinistic)
Confessions, Symbolik, p. 22. On the other hand, the Articles have no place in any collec-
tion of Lutheran symbols ; still less, of course, could they be included among Greek or Latin
symbols.
§ 81. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ARTICLES.
2. They are Augustinian in the anthropological and soteriological
doctrines of free-will, sin, and grace : herein likewise agreeing with
the Continental Eeformers, especially the Lutheran.
3. They are Protestant and evangelical in rejecting the peculiar
errors and abuses of Rome, and in teaching those doctrines of Script-
ure and tradition, justification by faith, faith and good worts, the
Church, and the number of sacraments, which Luther, Zwingli, and
Calvin held in common.
4. They are Reformed, or moderately Oalvinistie in the two doc-
trines of Predestination and the Lord's Supper, in which the Lutheran
and Reformed Churches differed ; although the chief Reformed Con-
fessions were framed after the Articles.
5. They are Erastian in the political sections, teaching the closest
union of Church and State, and the royal supremacy in matters eccle-
siastical as well as civil ; with the difference, however, that the Eliza-
bethan revision dropped the title of the king as ' supreme head in
earth,3 and excluded the ministry of the Word and Sacraments from
the ' chief government' of the English Church claimed by the crown.1
All the Reformation Churches were more or less intolerant, and en-
forced uniformity of belief as far as they had the power; but the
Calvinists and Puritans were more careful of the rights of the Church
over against the State than the Lutherans.
6. Art. XXXV., referring to the Prayer-book and the consecration
of archbishops, bishops, priests, and deacons, is purely Anglican and
Episcopalian, and excited the opposition of the Puritans.
We have now to furnish the proof as far as the doctrinal articles
are concerned.
THE ARTICLES AND THE AUGSBURG- CONFESSION.
The Edwardine Articles were based in part, as already observed,
upon a previous draft of Thirteen Articles, which was the joint prod-
uct of German and English divines, and based upon the doctrinal
1 The modification of the royal supremacy in Art. XXXVII., as compared with Art.
XXXVI. of Edward, was intended to meet the scruples of Romanists and Calvinists. Never-
theless this article, and the two acts of supremacy and uniformity, form the hasis of that re-
strictive code of laws which pressed so heavily for more than two centuries upon the con-
sciences of Roman Catholic and Protestant dissenters. Comp. the third chapter of Hallam's
Constitutional History of England (Harper's ed. pp. 71 sqq.).
624
THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Articles of the Augsburg Confession. Some passages were trans*
f erred veibatim from the Lutheran document to the Thirteen Artb
cleSj and from these to the Forty-two (1553), and were retained in the
Elizabethan revision (1563 and 1571). This will appear from the
following comparison. The corresponding words are printed in
italics.
AUGSBURG CONFESSION.
1530.
ART. I. De Deo.
Ecclesiae magno consensu
apud nos decent, Decretum
Nicsense Synodi, de imitate
essentise divinae et de tribus
personis, verum et sine ulla
dubitatione credendum
esse. Videlicet, quod sit
iina essentia divina, quse et
appellatur et est Deus, ater-
TVUS, incorporeus impartibilis,
immensa potentia, sapientia,
fanitate, creator et conserva-
tor omnium rerum, visi
titu,m et invisibttium; et ta-
men ires tint persona, ejus-
dem essentia et potentia, et
coseternse, Pater, Mlius et
8pirituB Sanctus. Et no-
mine person® utuntur ea
significatione, qua usi sunt
in hac causa scriptores
ecclesiastici, ut significet
non partem aut qualitatem
in alio, sed quod proprie
subsistit.
contra hunc articulum ex-
ortas, ut Manichseos, qui
duo principia ponebant,
Bonum et Malum; item
^Yalentinianos, Arianos,
Bunomianos, Mabometis-
THTBTEBN ABTICLBS.
1538.
ABT. I De Unitate Dei et
Trinitate Personarum.
De Unitate Essentise Di-
yinse et de Tribus Personis,
censemus decretum Nicenae
Synodi verum, et sine ulla
dubitatione credendum
esse, videlicet, quod sit una
Essentia Divina, quae et ap-
pellatur et est Deusy aster-
nu&, incorporeus, impa/r
bttis, immema potentia, sa-
entia, lonitate, creator et
conservator omnium rerum
tamen tres sint persona eju&-
dem essentia et potentia, et
coaeternse, Pater, IFilius, et
Spiritus Sanctus; et no-
mine personse utimur ea
significatione qua usi sunt
in hac causa scriptores
ecclesiastic!, ut significet
non partem aut qualitatem
in alio, sed quod proprie
subsistit.
Damnamus omnes hasre-
ses contra hunc articulum
exortas, ut Manichasos, qui
duo principia ponebant,
Bonum et jftalum: item
Valentinianos, Arianos,
Eunomianos, Mahometis-
THIRTY-NINB AHTICLES.
1563.
ABT. I. De Fide in Sacro-
sanctum Trinitatem.
Unus est vivus et vsrua
Dens ceternus, incorporeiis.
impartJbilis, impassibilis,
ac lonitatis : creator et con-
servator omnium turn visibi*
liwn, turn invwbilium. Et
in imitate huius divinas na-
turaB tres sunt Person® ejus-
dem essentia, potentia, ac
aaternitatis, Pater, Mldus, et
Spiritus Sanctw.*
fl The same passage occurs in the Reformat™ Legum ecclesiasticarvm (Be Summa Trini-
tate, c. 2), a work prepared by a committee consisting of Cranmer, Peter Martyr, and six
others, 1661. It was edited by Cardwell, Oxfor<3U850,..an.d serYes^s.A.commentary on the
Ssee.Hardwick, pp. 82jajyi ^Zl.
§ 81. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ARTICLES.
625
CONFESSION.
1530.
tas, et omnes horum simi-
les. Damnant et Samosa-
tenos, veteres et neotericos,
qui, cum tantum unam per-
sonam esse contendant, de
Verbo et de Spiritu Sancto
astute et impie rhetorican-
tur, quod non sint personse
distinct®, sed quod Yerbum
significet verbum vocale, et
Spiritus motum in rebus
creatum.
ART. m. De Filio Dei
Item docent, quod Ver-
lum, hoc est, FiUus Dei,
assumpserit humanamnatu-
ram in utero beafa Marine
virginis, ut sint dues natures,
dimna et humana, in unitate
persona inseparaWMer con-
junctos, unus Ohristus, vere
Deus et vere Twmo, natus ex
virgine Maria, vere passus,
crucifi&us, mortuus, et sepul-
tus, ut reconcUiaret nobis
Patrem, et Jiostia esset non
tantum pro cubpa originis,
sed etiam pro omnibus actu-
Idem descendit ad infe-
ros, et vere resurrexit tertia
die, deinde ascendit ad
coelos, ut sedeat ad dexte-
ram Patris, et perpetuo reg-
net et dominetur omnibus
creaturis, sanctificet cre-
dentes in ipsum, misso in
corda eorum Spiritu Sanc-
to, qui regat, consoletur ac
vivificet eos, ac defendat
adversus diabolum et vim
peccati.
Idem Christus pal am est
rediturus, ut judicet vivos
et mortuos, etc., juxta Sym-
Dolum Apostolonuru
THIRTEEN ARTICLES.
1538.
tas, et omnes horum simi-
les. Damnamus et Samosa-
tenos, veteres et neotericos,
qui cum tantum unam per-
sonam esse contendant, de
Verbo et Spiritu Sancto
astute et impie rhetorican-
tur, quod non sint personse
distinct®, sed quod Yerbum
signMcet verbum vocale, et
Spiritus motum in rebus
creatum.
ART. IEL De Duabus Christi
Naturis.
Item docemus, quod Ver-
lum, hoc est Filius Dei, as-
sumpserit humanam natu-
ram in utero fieata Marise
virginis, ut sint dues natura,
dwina et humana, in unitate
TSoncB inseparabiliter con-
juncta, unus Christus, vere
Deus, et vere homo, natus ex
virgine Maria, vere passus,
crucijfi&us, mortuus, et sepul-
tus, ut recondliaret nobis
Patrem, et Twstia esset non
tantum pro culpa originis,
sed etiam pro omnibus actu-
alftm Jiominum peccatis.
Item descendit ad infe-
ros, et vere resurrexit tertia
die, deinde ascendit ad
ccelos, ut sedeat ad dexte-
ram Patris et perpetuo reg-
net et dominetur omnibus
creaturis, sanctificet cre-
dentes in ipsum, misso in
corde eorum Spiritu Sanc-
to, qui regat, consoletur, ac
vivificet eos, ac defendat
adversus diabolum et vim
peccati.
Idem Christus palam est
rediturus ut judicet vivos
et mortuos, etc., juxta Sym-
bolum Apostolorum
THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES.
1563.
ART. n. Yerbum Dei verum
hominem esse factum.
Filius, qui est Verbum Pa-
tris ab aeterno a Patre geni-
tus verus et seternus Deus,
ac Patri consubstantialis,
in utero JBeatos virginis ex
illius substantia naturam
*manam assumpsit: ita ut
du<s natura, dimna et hu-
mana integre atque per-
fecte in unitate persona,
fuerint inseparabiliter con*
iunctce: ex quibus est unus
Christus, verus Deus et verus
homo: qui vere passus est,
crucifiayus, mortuus, et sepul-
tuB, ut Patrem nobis recon-
ciliaretj essetque hostia non
tantum pro culpa originis,
verum etiam pro omnibus
actualibus hominum peccatis.
626
THE CEEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
ATOSBUR® CONFESSION.
1530.
AST. IV. Be Justifica-
tione.
Item decent, quod homi-
nes non possint justificari
coram Deo propriis viribus,
mentis aut operibus, sed
gratis justificentur propter
Christum per fidem, cum
credunt se in gratiam reci-
pi, et peccata remitti prop-
ter Christum, qui sua morte
pro nostris peccatis satisfe-
cit. Hanc fidem imputat
Deus pro justitia coram
ipso. Rom.m.etIV.
AKT. VII. De Ecclesia.
Item decent, quod una
Sancta Ecclesia pepetuo
mansura sit. Est autem
Ecdesia congregatio Sanc-
torum [Versammlung aller
GlaMbigeri\,ini qua Evange-
lium recte [rein] docetur, et
recte [laut des Bvangelii]
administrantur Sacramento,.
Et ad veram unitatem
EcclesisB satis est consen-
tire de doctrina Evangelii
et administratione Sacra-
mentorum. Nee necesse
est ubique esse similes tra-
ditiones humanas, sen ritus
aut ceremonias, ab homini-
bus institutas. Sicut in-
quit Paulus (Eph. iv. 5, 6) :
Una fides, unum Baptisma,
unus Deus et Pater om-
nium, etc.
ART. XTTT. De Usu Sacra-
mentorum.
De usu Sacramentorum
docent, quod Sacramento
institute sint, non modo ut
THIRTEEN ARTICLES.
15J38.
ABT. IV. De Justifica-
tione.
[Art. IV. of the Augsburg
Confession is enlarged, and
Art. V. added. In this
case the English Articles
do not give the language,
but the sense of the Lu-
theran symbols, with the
unmistakeable *sola fide,'
which was Luther's watch-
word.]
ABT. V. De Ecclesia.
[This Article is much en-
larged, and makes an im-
portant distinction between
the Church as the ' congre-
gatio omnium sanctorum
et fideliumS (the invisible
Church), which is the mys-
tical body of Christ, and
the Church as the * congre-
gatio omnium hominum
qui baptizati sunt' (the
visible Church).]
AJBT. E8L De Sacramento-
rum Usu.
Docemus, quod Sacra-
menta quae per verbum Dei
instituta sunt, non tantwm
THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES.
1563.
ART. XL De Hominis lusti-
ficatione.
Tantum propter meritum
Domini ac Servatoris no-
stri lesu CTvristi, per fidem,
non propter opera et 'inerita
nostra, iusti coram Deo re-
putamur. Quare sola fide
nos imtificari) doctrina est
saluberrima, ac consola-
tionis plenissima: ut in
Homilia de lustificatione
hominis fusius esplicatur.
ART. XTX. De Ecclesia.
Ucclesia Christi visibilis.
est ccetus jfidelium, in quo
verbum Dei puram prsedi-
catur, et sacramenta, quoad
ea qu« necessario exigun-
tur, iuxta Christi institu-
tum recte administrantur.1
Sicut erravit Ecclesia
Hierosolymitana, Alexan-
drina et Antiochena : ita et
erravit Ecclesia Eomana,
non solum quoad agenda
et cseremoniarum ritus, ve-
rum in his etiam quse cre-
denda sunt.
[Compare Art. XXXIII.,
which treats of ecclesias-
tical traditions, and corre-
sponds in sentiment to the
second clause in Art. VII.
of the Augsburg Confes-
sion.]
ART. XXV. De Sacra-
mentis.
Sacramenta a Christo in-
stituta non tantum sunt nota
prqfessionis CJvristianorum,
1 The silence of this Article concerning the episcopal succession was observed by Joliffe,
prebendary at Worcester, who added among the marks of the Church, *legitima et continua suo-
cessio vicariorwn Christi.'
§ 81. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ARTICLES.
627
AUGSBUBG CONFESSION.
1530.
sint notce profemonis inter
homines, sed magis ut sint
signa et testimonia wlunta-
tfo Dei erga nos, ad exdtan-
dam et confirmandam fidem
in his, qui utuntur, propo-
sita. Itaque utendum est
Sacramentis ita, ut fides ac-
cedat, quse credat promis-
sionibus, quae per Sacra-
menta exhibentur et osten-
duntur.
Damnant igitur illos, qui
docent, quod Sacramenta
ex opere operato justificent,
nee docent fidem requiri in
usu Sacramentorum, quse
credat remitti peccata.
THIRTEEN ARTICLES.
1538.
\sint notes professionis inter
j Ohristianos, sed magis certa
qucedam testimonia et effica-
cia signa gratice, et "bonce wl-
\ untatis Dei erga nos,per qua
Deus
THIRTY-NINE ABTICLES.
1563.
sed certa qucedam potius tes-
timonia, et efficada signa
gratia atque bonce mnosvo-
luntatis Dd, per qua invisir
Hliter ipse m nobis operator,
nostramque^/^TW in se, non
solum endtat, verum etiam
conjfirwiat.
in nobiS) et suam gratiam in
nos invisibiliter difiundit,
siquidem ea rite susceperi-
mus ; quodque per ea exd-
tatur et confirmatur fides in
his qui eis utuntur. Porro
docemus, quod ita utendum
sit sacramentis, ut in adul-
tis, prseter veram contri-
tionem, necessario etiam
debeat accedere fides, quae
credat praesentibus promis-
sionibus, quse per sacra-
menta ostenduntur, exhi-
bentur, et praestantur. Ne-
que, etc.
Besides these passages, there is a close resemblance in thought,
though not in language, in the statements o£ the doctrine of original
sin,1 and of the possibility of falling after justification.2 Several of
the Edwardine Articles, also, which were omitted in the Elizabethan
revision, were suggested by Art. XVII. of the Augsburg Confession,
which is directed against the Anabaptists.
THE AEHOLES AND THE WUETEMBEBG- COOTESSION.
In the Elizabethan revision of the Articles another Lutheran Con-
fession was used (in Arts. IL, Y., VL, X., XL, and XX.) — namely, the
Confessio Wurtemb&rgica, drawn up by the Suabian Beformer, Bren-
tius (at a time when he was still in full harmony with Melanchthon),
in the name of Duke Christopher of Wurtemberg (1551), and pre-
sented by his delegates to the Council of Trent (Jan. 24, 1552).3 Soon
1 Conf. Aug. Art II., English Art. EL, from Augustine.
2 Conf, Aug. Art. XII. (4 Damnant Anabaptistas qui negant semel justificatos posse amittere
Spiritum Sanctum,' etc.), English Art. XVI.
3 Printed in the Corpus et Syntagma Conf., and in Dr. Heppe's Bekenntniss-Schriften der
altprotestantischen Kircke Deutschlands, Cassel, 1855, pp. 491-554. See above, § 47, pp. 343
•9. Archbishop Laurence (Bampton Lectures, pp. 40 and 233 sqq.) first diseorei*»d an£
628
THE CREEDS 0£ CHRISTENDOM.
after the accession of Elizabeth the negotiations with the German
Lutherans (which had been broken off in 1538) were resumed, with a
view to join the Smalcaldian League, but led to no definite result. It
was probably during these negotiatious that the Wiirtemberg Confes-
sion became known in England ; and as it had acquired a public noto-
riety by its presentation at Trent, and was a restatement of the Augs-
burg Confession adapted to the new condition of things, it was very
natural that it should be compared in the revision of the Articles.
Melanchthon's ' Saxon Eepetition of the Augsburg Confession5 would
indeed have answered the same purpose equally well, but perhaps it
was not known in time.
CORRESSIO WfeTEMBEBGICA, 1552.
AKF. n. De Filio Dei (Heppe, p. 492),
Credimus et confitemur Filium Dei,1
Domiaum nostrum Jesum Christum, ab
seterno a Fatre suo genitum, verum et
seternum Deum, Patri suo consubstantia-
lem, et in plenitudine temporis factum
hominem, etc.
ABT. HI. De Spiritu Sancto (Heppe,
p. 493).
Oredimus et confitemur Spiritual Sanc-
tum ab aeterno procedere a Deo Patre et
Filio, et esse ejusdem cum Patre et Filio
essentise, majestatis, et gloriae, verum ac
aeternum Deum.
ABT. XXX. De Sacra Scriptura (Heppe,
p. 540).
Sacram Scripturam vocamus eos Cano-
nicos libros veteris et novi Testament!, de
quorum authoritate in Ecclesia nunquam
dnbitatum est.
THTBTY-NINE ABTIGLES, 1568.
ABT. IE. Verbum Dei verum hominem
esse factum.
Ab seterno a Patre genitus, verus et
seternus Deus, ac Patri consubstantialis.
ABT. V. De Spiritu Sancto.
Spiritus Sanctus, a Patre et Filio pro-
cedens, ejusdem est cum Patre et Filio
essentiae, majestatis, et glorise, verus ac
seternus Deus.
ABT. YL Divinse Scripturae doctrina
sufficit ad salutem.
. . . Sacrse Scripture nomine eos Cano-
nicos libros veteris et novi Testamenti in-
telligimus, de quorum auctoritate in Ec-
clesia nunquam dnbitatum est.
pointed out this resemblance. Hardwick (pp. 126 sqq.) and the * Interleaved Prayer-Book'
speak of the Confession of Brentius alternately as the 'Saxon' Confession, and the 'Wiir^
temherg1 (or Wirtemburg !) Confession, as if the Saxon city of Wittenberg and the Duchy
(now Kingdom) of Wiirtemberg were one and the same. The 'Saxon Confession/ so called,
or the 'Repetition of the Augsburg Confession,' is a different document, written about the
same time and for the same purpose by Melanchthon, in behalf of the Wittenberg and other
Saxon divines. See above, p. 340, and the Oxford Sylloge, which incorporates the Saxon but
not the Wiirtemberg Confession.
621
AKTICJLES, 1563.
AKT. X. De Libero Arbitrio.
Ea est hominis post lapsum Adse coit
ditio, ut sese, naturalibus suis viribus el
:>onis operibus, ad fidem et invocationem
Dei convertere ac praeparare non possit.
The next clause, 'Quare absque gratia
Dei,' etc., is taken almost verbatim from
Augustine, De gratia et lib. artttrio, c. 17
(al 33).]
ART. XI. De Hominis Justificatione.
Tantum propter meritum Domini ac
Servatoris nostri Jesu Christi, per fidem,
non propter opera et merita nostra, justi
coram Deo reputamur.
§ 81. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ARTICLES.
CONFESSIO WifoTEMBERGICA, 1552.
ART. IV. De Peccato (Heppe,p.493).
Quod autem nonnulli affirmant homini
post lapsum tantam animi integritatem
relictam, ut possit sese, naturalibus suis
viribus et bonis operibus, ad fidem et in-
vocationem Dei convertere ac praeparare,
baud obscure pugnat cum Apostolica
doctrina, et cum vero Ecclesise Catholic®
consensu.
ART. V. De Justificatione (Heppe,
p. 495).
Homo enim fit Deo acceptus, et repu-
tatur coram eo Justus, propter solum
Filium Dei, Dominum nostrum Jesum
Christum, per fidem.
ART. YIEL De Evangelio Christi (Heppe,
p. 500).
Nee veteris nee novi Testament! ho-
minibus contingat aeterna salus propter
meritum operum Legis, sed tantum prop-
ter meritum Domini nostri Jesu Christi,
per fidem.
ART. TEL De Bonis Operibus (Heppe,
p. 499).
Non est autem sentiendum, quod iis
bonis operibus, quae per nos facimus, in
judicio Dei, ubi agitur de expiatione pec-
^atorum, et placatione divinsB irae, ac
-nerito aeternas salutis, confidendem sit.
•Omnia enim bona opera, quae nos faci-
nus, sunt imperfecta, nee possunt severi-
,»tem divini judicii ferre.
AJRT. xxxii, De Ecclesia (Heppe,
p. 544).
Credimus et confitemur, quod una sit
3ancta Catholica et Apostolica Ecclesia,
juxta symbolum Apostolorum et Nicss-
aum. . . .
Quod hsec Ecclesia habeat jus judi-
candi de omnibus doctrinis, juxta illud,
Probate spiritm, num ex Deo #int.
Quod h&c Ecclesia habeat jus interpre-
Scripturse.
ART. XII. De Bonis Operibus.
Bona opera, quse sunt fructus fidei, et
justificatos sequuntur, quanquam peccata
nostra expiare, et divini judicii severita-
tem ferre non possunt, Deo tamen grata
sunt et accepta in Christo. . . .
ART. XX. De Ecclesise Autoritate.
Habet Ecclesia ritus sive ceremonias
statuendijus, et in fidei controversiis auc-
toritatem, quamvis Ecclesise non licet
quicquam instituere, quod verbo Dei
scripto adversetur, nee unum Scripturse
locum sic expone're potest ut alteri
tradicat
630 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
THE ARTICLES AJND THE KEFOBKEL CONFESSIONS.
"We now proceed to those doctrines in which ,he Lutheran and the
Eeformed Churches differed and finally separated — namely, the doc-
trines of predestination and the eucharistic presence. Here we find
the English Articles on the Eeformed side. The authors and revisers
formed their views on these subjects partly from an independent study
of the Scriptures and Augustine, partly from contact with the Swiss
divines.
The principal Eeformed Confessions were indeed published at a
later date — the Gallican Confession in 1559 ; the Belgic in 1561 ; the
Heidelberg Catechism in 1563; the Second Helvetic Confession in
1566. But Zwingli's and Bullinger's works, Calvin's Institutes (1536),
and his Tract on the Lord's Supper (1541), the Zurich Consensus (1549),
and the Geneva Consensus (1552), must have been more or less known
in England. Bishop Hooper had become a thorough disciple of Bull-
inger by a long residence in Zurich before the accession of Edward
VL, and was consulted on the Articles. Cranmer (as previously men-
tioned) embraced, with Ridley, the Eeformed doctrine of the Lord's
Supper as early as 1548 ; he corresponded with the Swiss Eeformers,
as well as with Melanchthon, an<? invited them (March 1552) to En-
gland to frame a general creed ; and he was in intimate personal con-
nection with Bucer, Peter Martyr, John Laski, and Knox at the time
he framed the Articles.1 From the same period we have a remarkable
witness to the influence of Calvin's tracts in defense of the doctrine of
predestination.2 Bartholomew Traheron, then Dean of Chichester, and
Librarian to King Edward, wrote to Bullinger from London, Sept. 10,
1552, as follows:3 CI am exceedingly desirous to know what you and
the other very learned men who live at Zurich think respecting the
predestination and providence of God. If you ask the reason, there
are certain individuals here who lived among you some time, and who
assert that you lean too much to Melanchthon's views.4 But the greater
1 One of the last letters of Cranmer was written from his prison, 1555, to Peter Martyr,
wlr; was a decided Calvinist. See Zurich Letters, First Series, Vol. I. p. 29.
* See above, p. 474.
* Zurich Letters, First Series, Vol. I. p. 325.
* From this we might infer that Melanchthon's influence, in consequence of his abandon-
ment of absolute predestinarianism, was declining in England, while Calvin's was increasing.
§ 81. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ARTICLES. 631
number among us, of whom I own myself to be one, embrace the
opinion of John Calvin as being perspicuous, and most agreeable to
holy Scripture. And we truly thank God that that excellent treatise
of the very learned and excellent John Calvin against Pighius and one
G-eorgius Siculus should have come forth at the very time when the
question begrji to be agitated among us.1 For we confess that he has
thrown much light upon the subject, or rather so handled it as that we
have never before seen any thing more learned or more plain. We are
anxious, however, to know what are your opinions, to which we justly
allow much weight. We certainly hope that you differ in no respect
iTom his excellent and most learned opinion. At least you will please
to point out what you approve in that treatise, or think defective, or
reject altogether, if indeed you do reject any part of it, which we shall
not easily believe.5 To this letter Bullinger replied at length, but not
to the satisfaction of the Dean, who wrote to him again, June 3, 1553,
as follows:2 'You do not approve of Calvin, when he states that God
not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his
posterity, but that he also at his own pleasure arranged it. But un-
le&s we allow this, we shall certainly take away both the providence
and the wisdom of God altogether. I do not indeed perceive how
this sentence of Solomon contains any thing less than this: "The
Lord hath made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked for the
day of evil" (Prov. xvi. 4). And that of Paul: "Of him and through
him, and to him are all things" (Eom. xi. 36). I pass over other ex-
pressions which the most learned Calvin employs, because they occur
everywhere in the holy Scriptures.'
The Elizabethan revision was the work of the Marian exiles, who
felt themselves in complete theological harmony with the Swiss
divines, especially with Bullinger of Zurich, who represented an im-
proved type of Zwinglianism, and agreed with Calvin on the subject
1 He means the Ooitsensus Genevensis de ceterna Dei prcedestinatione, which appeared in
1552, and acquired semi-symbolical authority in Geneva. Calvin had also previously (1548)
written a tract against Pighius on the doctrine of free-will, and dedicated it to Melanchthon,
who gratefully acknowledged the compliment, but modestly intimated his dissent and his in-
ability to harmonize the all-ruling providence of God with the action of the human will. See
Stahelin, Calv. Vol. L p. 241.
a Zurich Letters, Krst Series, Vol. I. p. 327. Bullmger's tract De providentia, which waT
occasioned by Tiaheron, is still extant in MS. in Zuricn. and is fully noticed by SchweieeT
See above, t 475.
VOL. L— S-a
632 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
of the Lord's Supper (as expressed in the Consensus Tigurinus, 154:9),
but was more moderate and guarded on the subject of predestination.1
His writings seem to have been better known and exerted more in-
fluence in the earlier part of Elizabeth's reign than those of Calvin,
which were more congenial to the Scotch mind; but they became all-
powerful even in England towards the close of the sixteenth century.
On this point we have the explicit testimonies of the very men who
were the chief assistants of Archbishop Parker in the revision of the
Articles. Bishop Horn, of Winchester, wrote to Henry Bullinger,
Dec. 13, 1563, soon after the adoption of the Latin revision : 4 We have
throughout England the same ecclesiastical doctrine as yourselves. . . .
The people of England entertain on these points' [the sacraments, and
' against the ubiquitarianism of Brentius3] 'the same opinions as you
do at Zurich.'2 Bishop Grindal, of London, afterwards (1575) the
successor of Parker in the primacy, wrote to Bullinger, Aug. 27, 1566 :
'We, who are now bishops, most fully agree in the pure doctrines of
the gospel with your churches, and with the Confession you have
lately set forth' [i. e., the Second Helvetic Confession, which appeared
in the same year], ' And we do not regret our resolution ; for in the
mean time, the Lord giving the increase, our churches are enlarged
and established, which under other circumstances would have become
a prey to the Ecebolians, Lutherans, and semi-papists.'3 In a letter to
Calvin, dated June 19, 1563, Grindal says : * As you and Bullinger are
almost the only chief pillars remaining, we desire to enjoy you both
(if it please God) as long as possible. I purposely omit mention of
Brentius, who having undertaken the advocacy of the very worst of
causes' [ubiquitarianism], c seems no longer to acknowledge us as
brethren.'4 The letters of Bishop Cox, of Ely, to Bullinger and Peter
Martyr, though not so explicit, breathe the same spirit of grateful re-
1 On Bullinger's intimate personal relations with English divines, which began before tha
reign of Edward and continued till his death (1575), compare Pestalozzi's Heinrich Bulling^
pp.44lsqq.
8 Zurich Letters, Second Series, Vol. I. (A.D. 1 558-1 679), p. 135.
3 Ibid. p. 169. Ecebolns was a sophist of Constantinople in the fourth century, who fc&»
lowed the Emperor Julian in his apostasy.
* Ibid. Vol. II. p. 97. Brentius advocated the absolute ubiquity of Christ's body, and
fiercely attacked the Reformed in several tracts, from 1560 to 1564 (ten years after he wrote
the Wurtemberg Confession). He was answered by Bullinger and Peter Martyr. See above*
p, 390.
§ 81. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ARTICLES.
spect and affection. The strong testimony of Bishop Jewel of Sales-
bury, the final reviser of the English text and chief author of the
Second Book of Homilies, we have already quoted.1
PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION.
On the premundane mystery of predestination, which no system of
philosophy or theology can satisfactorily solve in this world, and which
ought to be approached with profound reverence and humility, all the
Reformers, in their private writings, followed originally the teaching
of the great Augustine and the greater St. Paul ; meaning thereby to
cut human merit and pride at the roots, and to give all the glory of
our salvation to God alone. But the Lutheran symbols (with the ex-
ception of the later Formula of Concord) are silent on the subject,
while most of the Eef ormed standards, under the influence of Calvin,
give it a prominent place. The English Articles handle it with much
wisdom and moderation, dwelling exclusively on the election of saints
or predestination to life. We give the XVIIth Article in its original
form with the later amendments ; the clauses which were omitted in
the Elizabethan revision are printed in italics, the words which were
inserted or substituted are inclosed in brackets.
AST. XV1L
OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION.
Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations
of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from
curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen [in Christ] 2 out of mankind, and to bring
them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honor. Wherefore, such as have
[they which be endued with] so excellent a benefit of God given unto them, be called accord-
ing to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season : they through grace obey the call-
ing : they be justified freely : they be made sons [of God] by adoption : they be made like
the image of God's [his] only begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works*
and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.
As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet*
pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the work-
ing of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and
drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish
and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth
1 See his letter to his revered teacher, Peter Martyr, p. 603. Grindal called him after his
death (Sept. 22, 1571), 'the jewel and singular ornament of the Church, as his name implies,'
— Zurich Letters, Second Series, Vol. I. p. 260. An adversary, Moren, said of him : 'I should
love thee, Jewel, if thou wert not a Zwinglian ; in thy faith I hold thee an heretic, but surely
in thy life thou art an angel.' Queen Elizabeth ordered a copy of Jewel's * Apology of the
Church of England' (1562) to be chained in every parish church.
4 The insertion 'in Christ' is Scriptural and in accordance with all the Reformed Con-
fessions. There is no election out of Christ or apart from Christ.
634 THE CEEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
fervently kindle their love towards God: so, for curious and carnal persons, tacking the Spirit
of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most
dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil may [doth] thrust them either ^into desperation, or
into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.
Furthermore, although, the Decrees of Predestination are unknown unto w, yet we must re-
fceive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture;
and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto
us in the Word of God.
This Article can not be derived from the Augsburg Confession, nor
irom the Thirteen Articles, nor from the Wiirtemberg Confession— for
they omit the subject of predestination altogether3 — nor from Melanch-
thon's private writings, for he abandoned his former views, and sug-
gested the synergistic theory as early as 1535, and more fully in 1548.2
It can not be naturally understood in any other than an Augustinian
or moderately Calvinistic sense. It does not, indeed, go as far as the
Lambeth Articles (1595), which the stronger Calvinism of the rising
generation thought necessary to add as an explanation. It omits the
knotty points ; it is cautiously framed and guarded against abuse.3 But
it very clearly teaches a free eternal election in Christ, which carries
with it, by way of execution in time, the certainty of the call, justifica-
tion, adoption, sanctification, and final glorification (Rom. viii. 29, 30).
1 With the exception of an incidental allusion to the absolute freedom of divine grace in
the Augsburg Confession, Art. V., De Ministerio: 'Per verbum et sacramenta tamquam per
instrumenta donatur Spiritus Sanctus, quifidem efficit, UBI ET QUANDO VISUM EST DEO, in Us
qui audiunt evangeliumS Compare with this the expression of the Form. Concordiae (Sol. decl.
Art. II. de lib. arbitr. p. 673) : ' Trahit Deus hominem, QUEM CONVERTERS DECREVIT.' It is
significant that in the altered edition of 1540 Melanchthon omitted the words 'ubi et quando
viswn est Deo, as also the words ' non adjuvante Deo' in Art. XIX. The brevity of allusion
shows that even in 1530, although still holding to the Augustinian scheme, he laid less stress
on it than in the first edition of his Loci. This appears also from a letter to Brentius, Sept.
30, 1531 (Corp. Ref. Vol. II. p. 547), where Melanchthon says: ' Sed ego in tota Apologia
fugi illam longam et inexplicabilem disputationem de prcedestinatione. Ubique sic loquor,
quasi prcedestinatio sequatw nostram Jidem et opera.1
* See above, pp. 262 sqq., and Schweizer, Centraldogmen, Vol. I. p. 384. There is not a
trace ofsynergism in theXVIIthArt., and Art. X. expressly denies the freedom of will, while
Melanchthon asserts it in the later editions of his Loci ('Liberum arUtrium esse in homine
facultatem applicandi se ad ffratiam1). Laurence (p. 179) and Hardwick (p. 383) derive the
last clause about fche 'general' promises and the 'revealed will7 from Melanchthon, but the
tame sentiments are found in Calvin, Bullinger, and the Reformed Confessions. See below.
* This element of caution and modesty is well expressed by Bishop Ridley : * In these mat-
ters [of God's election] I am so fearful that I dare not speak further, yea, almost none other-
wise than the very text doth, as it were, lead me by the hand.' Ridley's Works (Parker ed.),
p. 368. He thus wrote in a letter of sympathy to his friend and chaplain, Bradford, who in
prison, at London, had a dispute with a certain ' free-wilier,' Henry Hart, and wrote an ex-
cellent * Defense of Election.' This treatise was approved by his fellow-prisoners, and shows
what an unspeakable comfort they derived from this doctrine. See The Writings of John
Bradford, Martyr, 1555 (Parker Soc. ed.), pp. 307 sqq.
§ 81. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ARTICLES.
This is all that is essential, and a matter of dogma in the Keformed
Churches ; the rest of what is technically called Calvinism, in distinc-
tion from Arminianism, is logical inference, and belongs to the the-
ology of the school. It should be remembered that all the Eeformed
Confessions (even the Canons of Dort, the Westminster Confession, and
the Helvetic Consensus Formula) keep within the limits of infralapsa-
rianism, which puts the fall under a, permissive decree, and makes man
alone responsible for sin and condemnation ; the most authoritative, as
the Helvetic Confession of Bullinger, the Heidelberg Catechism, and
the Brandenburg Confessions (also the Scotch Confession of 1560) teach
only the positive and comforting part of predestination, and ignore or
deny a separate decree of reprobation ; thus taking the ground prac-
tically that all that are saved are saved by the free grace of God, while
all that are lost are lost by their own guilt. They also teach that God's
promises and Christ's redemption are general, and that we must abide
by the revealed will of God, which sincerely offers the gospel salvation
to all who repent and believe.1
The remarks of the Article about the ' sweet, pleasant, and unspeak-
able comfort5 of our election in Christ, and the caution against abuse
by carnal persons, are consistent only with the Calvinistic interpretation,
and wholly inapplicable to Arminian views, which are neither comfort-
able nor dangerous, and have never thrust any man ' into desperation,
or into wretchlessness of most unclean living.52
The view here taken is confirmed by the contemporary testimonies
1 Conf. Helv. post., cap. X. : * JBene sperandum est de omnibus* Vestrum non est de his ctt*
riosius vnguirere. . . . Audienda est prcedicatio evangelii, eigue credendum est, et pw indubi-
tato habendum, si credis ac sis in Christ o, electum te esse. . . . " Venite ad me omnes," etc. . . .
" Sic Deus dilexit mundum," etc. . . . "Non est voluntas Patris, ut guisgue de his pusillis
pereat." . . . Promissiones Dei sunt universales jidelibus* (not ekctis), etc. Heidelb. Cat.,
Qu. 37: ' Christ bore the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race (1 Pet. ii. 24 ;
1 John ii. 2, etc.).1 Conf. Belg., Art. XIII. : c Sufficit nobis ea duntaxat discere qua ipse
verbo suo nos docet, negue hos fines transilire fas esse dudmus.* Calvin himself often warns
against idle curiosity and speculation on the secret will of God, and exhorts men to abide by
the revealed will of God. See the passages quoted by Stahelin, Vol. II. p. 279. Comp. the
remarks of Dr. Julius Miiller on ths Reformed Confessions concerning predestination, in his
work, Die evang. Union (1854), p. 214, and his Dogmat. Abhandlungen (1870), p. 194.
2 Dr. Cunningham (The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, p. 194), says : 'It
is only the Calvinistic, and not the Arminian doctrine that suggests or requires such guards
or caveats ; and it is plainly impossible that such a statement could ever have occurred to the
compilers of the Articles as proper and necessary, unless they had been distinctly aware that
they had just laid down a statement which at least included the Calvinistic doctrine.'
636 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
already quoted, and by the first learned commentator of the Articles^
Thomas Kogers, who was chaplain to Archbishop Bancroft, and did
not sympathize with the Puritan party. He draws the following prop-
ositions from the XVIIth Article, and fortifies them with abundant
Scripture passages :l
c 1. There is a predestination of men unto everlasting life.
6 2. Predestination hath been from everlasting.
6 3. They who are predestinate unto salvation can not perish.
c 4. Not all men, but certain, are predestinate to be saved.
c 5. In Christ Jesus, of the mere will and purpose of God, some are
elected, and not others, unto salvation.
c 6. They who are elected unto salvation, if they come unto years of
discretion, are called both outwardly by the Word and inwardly by
the Spirit of G-od.
< 7. The predestinate are both justified by faith, sanctified by the
Holy Ghost, and shall be glorified in the life to come.
' 8. The consideration of predestination is to the godly-wise most
comfortable, but to curious and carnal persons very dangerous.
' 9. The general promises of God, set forth in the holy Scriptures,
are to be embraced of us.
' 10. In our actions, the Word of God, which is his revealed will,
must be our direction.'
To this theological comment I add the judgment of an impartial
and well-informed secular historian. Henry Hallam8 declares that the
Articles on predestination, original sin, and total depravity, c after
making every allowance for want of precision, are totally irreconcil-
able with the scheme usually denominated Arminian.5 He justly
appeals in confirmation of this judgment to contemporary and other
early authorities, and adds : ' Whatever doubts may be raised as to the
Calvinism of Cranmer and Eidley, there can surely be no room for
any as to the chiefs of the Anglican Church under Elizabeth. We find
explicit proofs that Jewel, No well, Sandys, and Cox professed to concur
with the Reformers of Zurich and Geneva in every point of doctrine.
1 The Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England, etc., first published, London, 1586,
Parker Society ed. (by J. J. S. Perowne), 1854, p. 143. This important work has not been
even alluded to by any writer I have consulted on the subject.
9 Constit. History of England, ch, vii. p. 230 (Amer. ed.).
§ 81. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ARTICLES. 63if
The works of Calvin and Bullinger became the text-books in the En-
glish universities. Those who did not hold the predestinarian theory
were branded with reproach by the name of Free-willers and Pela-
gians; and when the opposite tenets came to be advanced, as they
were at Cambridge about 1590, a clamor was raised as if some unusual
heresy had been broached.3
The Arminian interpretation of the Article under consideration is
an anachronism and a failure. The Lutheran interpretation is more
plausible, but true only so far as the Lutheran system is itself Augus-
tinian. The Tractarian interpretation, which identifies eternal elec-
tion with ecclesiastical calling, and the elect with the baptized, is con-
trary both to the spirit and letter of the Article. It must in all fair-
ness be admitted that Art. XVII., in connection with Arts. X. and
XI IX, implies the infralapsarian scheme, and that the Lambeth Arti-
cles are not a reaction, but a legitimate though one-sided development.
HOTE. — The anti-Calvinistic interpretation began after the Synod of Dort with Archbishop
Laud, or his biographer, Peter Heylin (in his Historia Quinqu-Articularis, London, 1660,
which was answered and refuted by Henry Hickman, in his Historia Quinqu-Articularis Ex-
articulata^ 1673). It was maintained, with hesitation, by Waterland (1721), more decidedly
by Dr. Winchester, d. 1780 (Dissertation on the XVIIth Article, new ed. London, 1808) ; by
Dean Kipling (The Articles of the Church of England proved not to be Calvinistic, Cam-
bridge, 1802) ; by Bishop Tomline, d. 1827 (A Refutation of Calvinism, London, 1811); and,
with considerable learning, by Archbishop Laurence, d. 1839 (Bampt. £ec*.,Lect. VII. and
VIII., Oxford, 1834, 3d ed. 1838); and by Hardwick (Hist, of the Articles).
Laurence and Hardwick, as already remarked, trace Article XVII to Lutheran sources,
but they overlook the difference between the Lutheran system (which admits the Augus-
tinian premises, and even the doctrine of unconditional election of grace — see the Formula
of Concord, ch. xi.) and the Arminian system (which denies the Angustinian anthropology,
and makes both election and reprobation conditional), and show more dislike than real knowl-
edge of Calvin. It is little less than a caricature when Laurence says of Calvin that his
' love of hypothesis ' was superior to his great talent and piety (p. 43) ; that his * vanity in-
duced him to frame a peculiar system of his own' (pp. 262, 263), and that *no man, perhaps,
was ever less scrupulous in the adoption of general expressions, and no man adopted them
with more mental reservations* (p. 375). Principal Cunningham has exposed this unfairness
(The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformers, 1866, pp. 179 s^q.^
Bishop Burnet (who was an Arminian and Latitudinarian) and Bishop Browne (a moderate
High-Churchman) hesitate between the Augustinian and the Arminian ^feetf^kation. Bur-
net, after calmly reviewing the different theories of predestination's "|ji ^^ Oxford ed.) :
'It is not to be denied, but that the Article seems to be framed according to St. Austin's
doctrine: it supposes men to be under a curse and damnation, ai ^ecedentiy to predestination,
from which they are delivered by it ; so it is directly against th&eeprqli^^ ; nor
does the Article make any mention of reprobation— no, not in a; f^^^Mp^011 is made
concerning it. The Article does also seem to assert the efficacy of graee—^hiat in which the
knot of the whole difficulty lies is not defined ; that is, whether (rod's eternal purpose or de-
cree was made according to what he foresaw his creatures would m^^'^f^^i upon an abso-
lute w% in order to his own glory. It is very probable that those wfetK penned it meant that
838 THE CREEDS Off CHRISTENDOM.
the decree was absolute; but yet since they have not said it, those who subscribe tuQ Articles
do not seem to be bound to any thing that is not expressed in them j and, therefore, since the
Bemonstrants do not deny but that God having foreseen what all mankind would, according
to all the different circumstances in which they should be put, do or not do, he upon that did
by a firm and eternal decree lay that whole design in all its branches, which he executes in
time ; they may subscribe this Article without renouncing their opinion as to this matter. On
the other hand, the Calvinists have less occasion for scruple, since the Article does seem more
plainly to favor them. The three cautions that are added to it do likewise intimate that St.
Austin's doctrine was designed to be settled by the Articl' . for the danger of men's having
the sentence of God's predestination always before their eyes, Mich may occasion either desper-
ation on the one hand, or the wretche ess of most unclean living on the other, belongs only to
that side ; since these mischiefs dc i- t arise out of the other hypothesis. The other two, of
taking the promises of God in the se**se in which they are set forth to us in holy Scriptures, and
of following that ^ W of God *' & is expressly declared to us in the Word of God, relate very
visibly to the same o inion.
Bishop Browne, after a lo. , discussion, co^es to the conclusion jp. 425) that * the Article
was designedl drawn up in gtutrded and geneial terms, on purpose to comprehend all persona
of tolerably sober views. ... I am strongly ^posed to believe that Cranmer's own opinions
were certainly neither Arminian lor Calvinistic, nor probably even Augustinian ; yet I can
hardly think that he would have • worded this Article had he intended to declare very deci-
dedly against either explanation of the doctrine of election.'
Bishop Forbes, a Tractarian, admits the Article to be 'Augustinian, but not Calvinistic8
(p. 252), and identifies the baptized with the elect, saying (p. 254), 'God's predestination «j
bestowed on every baptized Christian. . . . The fact of God bringing men to baptism is
iynonymous with his choosing them in Christ out of mankind.'
John Wesley, unable to reconcile Art. XVII. with his Anninianism, omitted it altogether
from his revision of the Articles.
BAPTISMAL REGENERATION AKD FALL FROM GRACE.
The Articles teach also the possibility of falling away from gracfc
(XVI.) and the doctrine of general baptismal regeneration (XXVII.),
This seems to exclude an absolute decree of election f to everlasting
life,3 which involves final perseverance as a necessary means to a cer-
tain end. Hence the attempts to explain away either the one or the
other in order to save the logical consistency of the formulary.1
In Article XVI. there is no real difficulty. It is directed against
1 Dr. Goode, in his learned work, The Doctrine of the Chwch of England as to the Effects
of Baptism in the case of Infants (1849), labors to show that inasmuch as the founders of the
Church of England were Calvimsts, they can not have held the Tractarian doctrine of baptis-
mal regeneration, which is incompatible with Calvinism. Archdeacon Wilberforce, who after-
wards seceded to Borne, showed, in his Doctrine of Holy Baptism (London, 1849), in opposi-
tion to Goode, that the formularies of the Church of England do clearly teach baptismal
*egeneration. J. B. Mozley, BJX, Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, in his able work on
The Primitive Doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration (London, 3 856), takes a middle ground,
viz., that the Church of England imposes the doctrine 'that God gives regenerating grace to
the whole body of the baptized, ' and tolerates the doctrine ' that God gives grace sufficient
for salvation only to some of this body /and ' that these two positions can not really be in col-
lision with each other, though apparently they are.' Mozley grapples with the difficulties of
the problem, but has after all not succeeded m making it clear.
§ 81. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ARTICLES. 639
the Anabaptists, who ' say they can no more sin/ and the modern No-
vatians, who ' deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent,' and
accords with a similar article in the Angsburg Confession.1 It simply
teaches the possibility of a temporary fall of the baptized and regen-
erated, but not a total and final fall of the elect, as is clear from the
addition, i and by the grace of God we may arise again and amend our
lives.' This is quite consistent with Augustinianism, and even with
the most rigorous form of Calvinism.2
On the subject of baptism the Anglican Church agrees much more
with the Lutheran than with the Oalvinistic creed. She retained the
Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration, but rejected the opus
operatum theory, and the doctrine that baptism destroys the nature of
original sin as well as its guilt. Baptismal regeneration is taught
indefinitely in Article XXVII.,3 more plainly in the Catechism,4 and
in the baptismal service of the Liturgy, which pronounces every child
after baptism to be regenerated.5
1 Comp. Augs. Conf., Art. XII. : * Damnant Anabaptistas, qui negant semel justificatos
posse amittere Spiritum Sanctum. . . . Damnantur et Novatiani qui nolebant absolvere lapsos
post baptismum redeuntes ad pcenitentiam.' Also Bullinger's Confes. Helv., cap. 3TV. :
'Damnamus et veteres et novos Novatianos, atque Catharos.'
2 See the defense of this Article by Dean Bridges, of Sarum, quoted by Hardwick, p. 211.
3 * Baptism is ... a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they
that receive baptism rightly, are grafted into the Church.' The language of this Article bears
a Reformed or Calvmistic interpretation. Bishop Hooper and several of the Marian exiles
were Zwinglians, but the views of Cranmer and Ridley, in their private writings, on the effects
of baptism and baptismal grace, agree substantially with those of Luther. See Browne on
Art. XXVII. pp. 668 sq. ; the passages collected by Jones, Expos, of the, Art. pp. 157 sqq. ;
also Hardwick, pp. 393-395.
* The second question: 'Who gave you this name? Ans. My godfather and godmother
in baptism, wherein I was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the
kingdom of heaven.'
5 After the public baptism of infants, the priest shall say : ' Seeing now, dearly beloved
brethren, that this child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ's Church, let us
give thanks to Almighty God for these benefits,' etc. And in the prayer which follows : * We
yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this
infant with thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for thine own child by adoption, and to incorpo-
rate him into thy holy Church.' The same prayer is prescribed for the office of private bap-
tism of infants. The baptismal service is derived from the Saram Manual and from the
* Consultation' of Archbishop Hermann of Cologne, which was borrowed from Luther's
Taufbuchlein. See Daniel, Cod. Liturg. JEccl. Luth. p. 185, and Procter, History of the Book
of Common Prayer, p. 371, llth ed. (1874). Among the eight particulars in the Prayer-
Book, which Baxter and his Nonconformist brethren objected to as sinful, the fourth was
*that ministers be forced to pronounce all baptized infants to be regenerate by the Holy
Ghost, whether they be the children of Christians or not' (Procter, p. 133). The last clause
intimates that baptized children of Christian parents were regarded by them as regenerate.
340 ^H£ CREEDS OE
This doctrine seems to be contradicted by the undeniable fact that
multitudes of baptized persons in all churches, especially in those where
infant baptism is indiscriminately practiced, show no signs of a holy
life or real change of heart and belie their baptismal engagements.
To remove this difficulty, some Anglicans take the language of the
baptismal service, not in a real and literal, but in a hypothetical or
charitably presumptive meaning.1 Others make a distinction between
baptismal or ecclesiastical regeneration (i. e., incorporation into the visi-
ble Church) and moral or spiritual regeneration (which includes reno-
vation and conversion). Still others distinguish between the regen-
erate and the elect, and thus harmonize Art. XXVII. with Art. XVII.
Augustine regards the elect as an inner circle of the baptized ; and
holds thatj in addition to the baptismal grace of regeneration, the elect
receive from God the gift of perseverance to the end, which puts into
execution the eternal and unchangeable decree of election. The rea-
son why God grants this grace to some and withholds it from others
is unknown to us, and must be traced to his inscrutable wisdom.
'Both the grace of the beginning,5 he says, 'and the grace of persever-
ing to the end is not given according to our merits, but according to a
most secret, just, wise, and beneficent will.' 'Wonderful indeed, very
wonderful, that to some of his own sons, whom he has regenerated, and
to whom he has given faith, hope, and charity, God does not give per-
severance.*2
1 So Mozley, who endeavors to fasten this meaning upon the fathers, and the standard
Anglican writers, including Hooker. But the strong language of the Greek and Latin
fathers, who almost identify baptism with regeneration, and seem to know no other regenera-
tion hut that hy baptism (which they call dva-yevvrjffiG, iraXiyyevtcria, Seoyevecrte, 0omff/-ioc,
regeneratio^ secunda nativitas, renascentia, illuminatio), must he understood chiefly of adult
baptism, which in the first four centuries of the Church was the rule, while infant baptism
was the exception, and which was administered to such only as had passed through a course
of catechetical instruction, and professed repentance and faith in Christ. The same is true
of the passages of the New Testament on baptism.
* See his tract De dono perseverantioz, and Mozley's Treatise on the Augustinian Doctrine
of Predestination (Lond. 1855), pp. 191 sqq., and the Primitive Doctrine of Baptismal Re-
generation, pp. US sqq. Mozley thinks that Augustine means by baptismal regeneration
only capacity for goodness and holiness. Browne (on Art. XXVII.) presents a somewhat
different view, viz., that Augustine uses the term regeneration sometimes in a wider, some-
times in a stricter and deeper sense. 'At one time he speaks of all the baptized as regen-
erate in Cnrist, and made children of God by virtue of that sacrament ; at another time he
speaks of baptismal grace as rather enabling them to become, than as actually constituting
them God's children ; and says that, in the higher and stricter sense, persons are not to be
called sons of God unless they have the grace of perseverance, and walk in the love of God'
§ 81. TEE INTEEPRETATtON OF THE ABTTCLES. 641
Here is a point where Calvin differs from Augustine, at least in
logic, although they agree in the result — namely, the non-salvation of
the non-elect, whether baptized or not. Calvin likewise brings baptism
into close connection with regeneration,1 but he draws a sharper dis-
tinction between the outward visible sign and seal (Rom. iv. 11) and the
inner invisible grace ; he takes moreover a higher view of regenera-
tion as a thorough moral renovation, and identifies the truly regenerate
with the elect. He consequently restricts the regenerating efficacy of
the Spirit to the elect, and makes it so far independent of the sacra-
mental act that it need not always coincide with it, but may precede
or follow the same. Thus the Westminster Confession calls baptism
c a sign and a seal of the covenant of grace, of his [the baptized per-
son's] ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and
of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of
life.5 But it adds that ' grace and salvation are not so inseparably an-
nexed unto it [baptism], as that no person can be regenerated or saved
without it (Eom. iv. 11 ; Acts x. 2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47) ; or, that all that are
baptized are undoubtedly regenerated (Acts viii. 13, 23). The efficacy
of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is adminis-
tered (John iii. 8) : yet, notwithstanding by the right use of this ordi-
nance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and
conferred by the Holy Ghost to such (whether of age, or infants) as
that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will,
in his appointed time (Gal. iii. 27; Tit. iii. 5 ; Eph. v. 25, 26 ; Acts iL
38,41).'2
The objection to the Calvinistic view is that it resolves the baptism
of the non-elect into an empty ceremony (not to say solemn mockery) ;
while the Augustinian view turns the baptismal regeneration of the
non-elect into a failure. The former sacrifices the universality of bap-
tismal grace to the particularism of election, the latter sacrifices the
higher view of regeneration to the claims of baptism. The real diffi-
(p. 660). There is no doubt that Augustine wished to adhere to the traditional orthodox
view of baptism, and yet he could not help seeing that his new doctrine of predestination
required a modification, which, however, he did not fully and clearly carry out.
1 This is undoubtedly the case in the New Testament wherever Christian baptism is men-
tioned: Johniii. 5; Acts ii.38; Bom. vi. 3,4; Gal.iiL27; Col.ii.12; Eph.v.26; Tit. iii.
5 ; 1 Pet. iii. 21. Calvin's exposition of some of these passages in his commentaries should
be compared with his teaching in the * Institutes,*
*Chap. xxviii. 1,6*6.
642 THE CREEDS OF CEBISTENDOM.
culty of both theories lies in the logical incompatibility or a limited
election and a universal baptismal grace. The predestinarian system
and the sacramental system are two distinct lines of thought, which
neither Augustine nor Calvin have been able satisfactorily to adjust
and to harmonize.
NECESSITY OF BAPTISM.
As to the necessity of baptism for salvation, the Anglican Church at
first followed, but afterwards softened the rigor of the Augustinian
and Eoman Catholic doctrine, which excludes even unbaptized infants
dying in infancy from heaven, and assigns them to the limbus in/an-
turn, on the borders of hell. In the second of the Ten Articles of Henry
YIIL (1536), it is asserted that 'infants and children dying in infancy
shall undoubtedly be saved thereby [bj baptism], and else not? In the
first revision of the Liturgy, the introductory prayer that the child may
be received by baptism into the ark of Christ's Church contains the ex-
clusive clause 'and so saved from perishing.51 But in the revision of
1552 this clause was omitted ; for Cranmer, who framed the Liturgy,
had in the mean time changed his opinion, as we may infer from the
treatise upon the * Reformation of Ecclesiastical Laws,5 composed under
his superintendency, where the 'scrupulous superstition' of the necessity
of infant baptism for infant salvation is rejected.2 This change must
be traced to the influence of Zwingli and Bullinger, who first boldly
asserted that all infants dying before committing actual sin, whether
baptized or not, whether of Christian or heathen parents, are saved in
consequence of the universal merit of Christ ('propter remedium per
Christum e%hibitum'\ which holds good until rejected by unbelief.3
1 Borrowed from the Lutheran service composed by Melanchthon and Bucer for Cologne :
' That being separated from the number of the ungodly, he may be kept safe in the holy ark
of thy Church (in sancta JEcclesice tuce Area tutus servari possit).' See Laurence, p. 71 ;
Procter, p. 374. The Augsburg Confession (Art. IX., Latin ed.) teaches quod baptismus sit
necessaries ad salutem, and condemns the Anabaptists for teaching that infants may be saved
without baptism.
8 Reformat. Leg., De Baptismo : * Illorum etiam videri debet scrupulosa svperstitio, qui Dei
gratiam et Spiritum Sanctum tantopere cum sacramentorum elementis colligant, ut plane qffir-
ment, nullum Ckristianorum infantem salutem esse consecuturum, quiprius mortefuerit occupa-
tus, quam ad Baptismum adduci potuerit ; quod knge secus habere judicamus.'
3 See above, p. 378. Zwingli was not quite so positive about the salvation of heathen chil-
dren, but he declared it at least 'probMRus ut gentium liberiper Christum salventur quam ut
damnentur.' Bullinger held the same view, though not so clearly expressed. See the pas-
sages quoted by Laurence, pp. 266,267, who agrees on this subject with the Zurich Reformers.
§ 81. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ARTICLES. 648
Calvin likewise taught the possibility of salvation without baptism,
but confined it to the elect. Thomas Becon (chaplain to Cranmer,
and one of the six preachers of Canterbury Cathedral, died 1567)
is very explicit on this subject. As many Jewish children, he says,
were saved without circumcision, so many Christian children, and
even Turks and heathens, may be spiritually baptized and saved with-
out water baptism. ; Besides all these things, what shall we say of
God's election ? Can the lack of outward baptism destroy and make
of none effect the election of God; so that when God hath chosen
to everlasting salvation, the want of an external sign shall cast down
into everlasting damnation ? ... As many people are saved which
never received the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, so like-
wise are many saved though they were never outwardly baptized with
water ; forasmuch as the regeneration of the Christian consisteth rather
in the spirit than in the flesh. This text, therefore, of Christ, " Except
a man be born of water," etc., is to be understood of such as may con-
veniently be baptized, and yet, notwithstanding, contemptuously refuse
baptism, and despise the ordinance of Christ.' l Bishop Jewel says :
' The grace of God is not tied to any sacraments. He is able to work
salvation both with them and without them.' 2 Hooker is much more
cautious and churchly. < Predestination,' he says, 'bringeth not to life,
without the grace of external vocation, wherein our baptism is implied,
. . . which both declareth and maketh us Christians. In which respect
we justly hold it to be the door of our actual entrance into God's house;
the first apparent beginning of life ; a seal, perhaps, to the grace of
election, before received (Calvin, Instit. iv. 15, 22), but to our sanctifi-
cation here a step that hath not any before it. ... If Christ himself
which giveth salvation do require baptism (Mark xvi. 16), it is not for
us that look for salvation to sound and examine him, whether unbap-
tized men may be saved, but seriously to do that which is required, and
religiously to fear the danger which may grow by want thereof.' Yet,
touching infants who die unbaptized, he inclines, at least in regard to
the offspring of Christian parents, to a charitable presumption of cthe
great likelihood of their salvation,' for the reasons that c grace is not
absolutely tied unto sacraments;' that 'God bindeth no man unto
1 Quoted by Jones, 1. c. pp. 167 sq. a Ibid. p. 171.
644 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
things altogether impossible;5 that ' there is in their Christian parents,
and in the Church of God, a presumed desire that the sacrament of
baptism might be given them;' and that 'the seed of faithful parent-
age is holy from the very birth (1 Cor. vii. 14).3 1
The Anglican Church, then, as far as we may infer from her author-
itative declarations, makes certain the salvation of all baptized infants
dying in infancy, and leaves the possibility of salvation without bap-
tism an open question, with a strong leaning towards the liberal view.
The Roman Church makes infant salvation without baptism impossi-
ble ; the Lutheran Church makes it at least improbable ; the Calvin-
istic Churches make it certain in the case of all the elect, without
regard to age, and decidedly incline to the charitable belief that all
children dying in infancy belong to the number of the elect.
The doctrine of the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation has
always been based upon two declarations of our Lord, Mark xvi. 16,
and John iii. 5 (on the assumption that ' water5 refers to baptism).
But in the first passage our Lord, after declaring that faith followed
by baptism saves, states the negative without adding, and is not bap-
tized; intimating by this omission, that only the want of faith or the
refusal of the gospel, not the want of baptism, condemns. In the dis-
course with Nicodemus he does not say that water baptism is regener-
ation, nor that every one that is born of water is also born of the
Spirit (which was certainly not the case with Simon Magus, who, not-
withstanding his baptism, remained c in the gall of bitterness and the
bond of iniquity5); he simply lays down two conditions for entering
into the kingdom of God, and puts the emphasis on being born of
the Spirit. This is evident from the fact that in that discourse ' water5
is mentioned but once, but the Spirit four times. The most that can
be inferred from the two passages is the ordinary necessity of baptism
where it can be had — that is, within the limits of the Christian Church.
We are bound to God's ordinances, but God's Spirit is free and ' blow-
eth where it listeth.' We should never forget that the same Lord was
the special friend of children, and declared them to belong to the king-
dom of heaven, without any reference to baptism or circumcision, add-
ing these significant words, €It is not the will of your Father who is in
heaven that one of these little ones should perish5 (Matt.xviii.14:).
1 JScdes. Polity, Book V. ch. 60 (Vol. H. pp. 341, 342, 346, 347, KeWs ed.).
§ 81. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ARTICLES.
645
THE LOED3S SUPPER.
If the Articles on Predestination and Baptism leave room for differ-
ent interpretations, there can be no reasonable doubt about the mean
ing of Art XXVIII. on the Lord's Supper. It clearly teaches th&
Eeformed doctrine of the spiritual presence and spiritual eating by
faith only, in opposition both to transubstantiation and consubstantia-
tion, which imply a corporal presence and an oral manducation by all
communicants, both good and bad, although with opposite effects.
The wide departure from the Lutheran formularies, otherwise so
freely consulted, may be seen from the following comparison :
AUGSBUBG CONFESSION.
1530.
ABT. X.
De ccena Domini docent,
guod corpus et sanguis Chris-
ti YEBE ADSINT, et disto4-
luantur VBSCENTIBUS in
coma Domini; et improbant
THIRTEEN ARTICLES.
1538.
AUT. vn.
De EiLcharistia constanter
credimus et docemus, guod in
sacramento corporis et san-
guinis Domini VERB, STJB-
8TANTIAUTER,1 ET REALI-
CTvristi SUB SPECIEBXTS PA-
NIS ET vnrr.a M guod sub
ejusdem spedebus vere et re-
aliter exJilbentwr et DISTRI-
BUUNTUR HMs qui sacramen-
tum acdpiunt, me lonis
SIVE MAUS.
THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES.
1563 AND 1571.
A»T. XXVUI.
Corpus Ohristi datur, ao
cipifar, et manducatur TAN-
TUM CCELESTI ET SPIRITU-
AL! RATIONE (only after an
heavenly and spiritual man-
ner). Medium autem quo
Corpus GTiristi accipitur et
mandiicatur in ccsna^vnm&
est (and the mean whereby
the body of Christ is re-
ceived and eaten in the
Supper, is faith).
The clause here quoted from the Elizabethan revision was wanting
in the Edwardine Articles, and was inserted on motion of Bishop
Guest of Rochester.3 Both series contain the assertion that the bread
which we break is a communion of the body of Christ c to such as
rightly ) worthily \ and with faith receive the same,5 which was meant
to exclude the oral manducation. Both strongly condemn transubstan-
tiation. The Edwardine Articles protest also against the Lutheran
1 The term substantialiter is borrowed from the Apology of the Augsburg Conf., Art. X.
3 Sub spedebus panis et vini, from the German edition of the Augsburg Conf. (unter Gestalt
des Brotes und Weines).
3 This is inferred from a letter to Cecil, Dec. 22, 1566, where Guest justifies the use of the
word * only7 by saying that he did not intend to exclude * the presence of Christ's body from
the sacrament, but only the grossness and sensibleness in the receiving thereof.' Hard wick,
p. 130.
646 THE C&EEt>S OF CHRISTENDOM.
hypothesis of the ubiquity of Christ's body.1 This same protest against
ubiquity is found substantially in the Parker MS. of the Latin revision
of 1563, but it was struck out in the Convocation.2 Instead of it a
new Article was added in the English revision of 1571, denying that
the unworthy partake of Christ in the communion.3
The Catechism likewise limits the reception of Christ's body and
blood to the ' faithful/ and declares the benefit of the Lord's Supper
to be * the strengthening and refreshing of our souls! The communion
service does not rise above this view, and the distribution formula, in-
serted in the revision of 1552, expresses the commemorative theory.
The rubric on kneeling, at the close of the service, which was inserted
in the second Prayer-Book of Edward VI. (1552) by Cranmer, through
the influence of Hooper and Knox (one of the royal chaplains),* then
omitted in Elizabeth's reign from regard to the Catholics, but which
was again restored in the reign of Charles II. (1662) to conciliate the
Puritans, explains the kneeling at the communion not to mean an
adoration of the sacramental bread and wine, or any corporal presence
of Christ's natural flesh and blood. * For the natural body and blood
of Christ are in heaven, and not here ; it being against the truth
of Christ's natural body to be at one time in more places than one.'
This is a plain declaration against consubstantiation and ubiquity.
Before the Articles were framed a public disputation on the eucha-
1 'Forasmuch as the truth of man's nature requireth that the hody of one and the self-same
man can not be at one time in diverse places, but must needs be in some one certain place :
therefore the body of Christ can not be present at one time in many and diverse places. And
because (as holy Scripture doth teach) Christ was taken up into heaven, and there shall con-
tinue unto the end of the world, a faithful man ought not either to believe or openly to con-
fess the real and bodily presence (as they term it) of Christ's flesh and blood, in the sacra-
ment of the Lord's Supper.'
a Hardwick regards this omission as a protest against Zwinglianism. But the leading
Elizabethan bishops, especially Horn, Jewel, and Grindal, assure Bullinger and Peter Martyr
of their full agreement with them against the ubiquitarian hypothesis, which was at that time
defended by Brentius and Andreae, and opposed by the Swiss. See pp. 603 and 632.
3 Art. XXIX. * Of the wicked which do not eat the body of Christ in the use of the Lord's
Supper. The wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and
visibly press with their teeth (as St. Augustine saith) the sacrament [i.e., the sacramental
sign] of the body and blood of Christ : yet in no way are they partakers of Christ, but rather
to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing.' This
Article is wanting in the Latin edition of 1563, haying probably been withdrawn from the
Convocation records in compliance with the desire of the Queen and her council to deal
gently with the adherents of the 'old learning' (whether Romish or Lutheran) ; but it was
inserted in the Latin editions after the year 1571. See Hardwick, pp. 144 and 315.
* See the lengthy discussion of this subject in Lorimer's John Knox, pp. 100-136.
§ 81. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ARTICLES. 64?
nstie presence was held before the royal commissioners at the Univer-
sity of Oxford, May, 1549, in which Peter Martyr, then professor of
theology, defended the figurative interpretation of the words, * This is
my body,' and the commemorative character of the ordinance. The
acts of the disputation were published by Cranmer, with a preface and
discourse of Peter Martyr.1 In June of the same year a disputation on
the same subject, in which Bucer took part, was held in the University
of Cambridge.2
Cranmer, after holding first to transubstantiation, then to consub-
stantiation, adopted at last the Calvinistic theory of a spiritual real
presence and a spiritual reception by faith only, and embodied it in the
Articles and the second revision of the Liturgy.3 He openly confessed
this change at a public disputation held in London, Dec. 14, 1548, in
the Parliament house, c in the presence of almost all the nobility of
England.34 He wrote an elaborate exposition and defense of his final
1 Tractatio de Sacramento JEucharistice habita in celeberrima Universitate Oxoniensi. Ad
hcec: Disputatio de eodem sacramento in eadem Universitate habita. London, 1549; also in
Zurich, 1552, and an English translation, 1583. See an account in Dr. C. Schmidt, Peter
Martyr Verinigli, Leben und ausgewahlte Schriften (Elberfeld, 1858), pp. 91-100, 105.
8 Schmidt, p. 106. Ridley's Works, pp. 171 sqq.
3 See above, p. 601. Cranmer admits the charge of his opponents, Bishop Gardiner and
Dr. Smith, that he was upon this point first a Papist, then a Lutheran, and at last a Zwin-
glian. c After it hath pleased God, ' he says, 4 to show unto me, by his holy Word, a more per-
fect knowledge of his Son Jesus Christ, from time to time as I grew in knowledge of him, by
little and little I put away my former ignorance. And as God of his mercy gave me light, so
through his grace I opened mine eyes to receive it, and did not willfully repugn unto God and
remain in darkness. And I trust in God's mercy and pardon for my former errors, because
I erred but of frailness and ignorance.' Answer to Smith's Preface, Works, Vol. I. p. 374.
* Of this recantation Bartholomew Traheron wrote to Bullinger from London, Dec. 31,
1548, as follows : ' I can not refrain, my excellent Bullinger, from acquainting you with cir-
cumstances that have lately given us the greatest pleasure, that you and your fellow-ministers
may participate in our enjoyment. On the 14th of December, if I mistake not, a disputation
was held at London concerning the eucharist, in the presence of almost all the nobility of
England. The argument was sharply contested by the Bishops. The Archbishop of Canter-
bury, contrary to general expectation, most openly, firmly, and learnedly maintained your
opinion upon this subject. His arguments were as follows : The body of Christ was taken,
up from us into heaven. Christ has left the world. " Ye have the poor always with you, but
me ye have not always," etc. Next followed the Bishop of Rochester [Ridley], who handled
the subject with so much eloquence, perspicuity, erudition, and power, as to stop the mouth
uf that most zealous papist, the Bishop of Worcester [Heath]. The truth never obtained a
Oiore brilliant victory among us. I perceive that it is all over with Lntheranism, now that
those who were considered its principal and almost only supporters have altogether come
over to our side. We are much indebted to the Lord who provides for us also in this particu-
lar.' In a postscript to this letter, John of Ulmis adds : 'The foolish Bishops have made a
marvelous recantation.' The same * notable disputation of the sacrament' is mentioned in
VOL. L— T T
THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
view against the attacks of Gardiner,1 He does not allude to Cal-
vin's writings on the eucharist, although he can hardly have been igno-
rant of them, but quotes largely from Augustine, Tertullian, Origen,
Theodoret, and other fathers who seem to favor a figurative inter-
pretation, and approvingly mentions Bertram, Berengarius, and Wycliff
among mediaeval divines, and Bucer, Peter Martyr, Zwingli, CEcolampa-
dius among the Reformers, as teaching substantially the same doc-
trine.2 He also expressed his unqualified approbation of Bullinger'b
6 Tract on the Sacraments/ which was by his desire republished in En-
gland (1551) by John & Lasco, to whom he remarked that ' nothing of
Bullinger's required to be read and examined previously.33 But he
traced his change directly to Bishop Ridley,3 and Ridley derived his
view not so much from Swiss sources as from Bertram (Ratramnus),
who, in the middle of the ninth century, wrote with great ability
against the magical transubstantiation theory of Paschasius Radbertus,
and in favor of a spiritual and dynamic presence.4 Cranmer's last ut-
terances on this subject, shortly before his condemnation and martyr-
dom, were made in the Oxford disputations with the Romanists to
which he, with Ridley and Latimer, was summoned from prison, April
(and again in September), 1555. He declared there that Christ's { true
body is truly present to them that truly receive him, but spiritually.
And so it is taken after a spiritual sort. ... If ye understand by this
word "really" re ipsa, i. e., in very deed and effectually, so Christ, by
King Edward's Journal as having taken place in the Parliament house. See Zurich Letters,
1537-1558, pp. 322, 323.
1 An Answer unto a Crafty and Sophistical Cavillation, devised by Stephen Gardiner,
Doctor of Law, late Bishop of Winchester, against the Trite and Godly Doctrine of the most
holy Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ (1 550). The sacramental
writings of Cranmer fill the first volume of the Parker Society's edition of his works (Cam*
bridge, 1844).
a Works, VoL L pp. 14, 173, 196, 225, 374.
3 See a letter of John fc Lasco to Bnllinger, dated London, April 10, 1551 ; CardweU's IAt-
wgies of Edward VL (Preface), and Lorimer's John Knox, p. 49.
* Bishop Browne correctly says (p. 710): 'Ridley, indeed, refusod to take the credit of
converting Cranmer, but Cranmer himself always acknowledged his obligations to Ridley.'
In his last examination at Oxford, before Bishop Brooks of Gloucester (Sept., 1555), Cranmei
said that 'Doctor Bidley, by sundry persuasions and authorities, drew me quite from my
opinion* (on the real presence). Works, Vol. II. p. 218. Brook? on the same occasion re-
marked; 'Latimer leaneth to Cranmer, Cranmer to Bidley, and "Ridley to the singularity of
his own wit;' to which Bidley replied, that this was 'most untrue, in that he was but a young
scholar io comparison of Master Cranmer.' Ridley's Work*, pj«, 283, 284.
§ 81. THE 3NTERPEEtAT"ION OF f BEE ARTICLES.
the grace and efficacy of his passion, is in deed and truly present to
all his true and holy members. But if ye understand by this word
"really," corporaliter, i. e., corporally, so that by the body of Christ is
understanded a natural body and organical, so the first proposition
doth vary, not only from usual speech and phrase of Scripture, but
also is clean contrary to the holy "Word of God and Christian profes-
sion : when as both the Scripture doth testify by these words, and also
the Catholic Church hath professed from the beginning, Christ to have
left the world, and to sit at the right hand of the Father till he come
unto judgment5 l
We add the last confessions of the other two English Eef ormers at
their examination in Oxford.
Bishop Latimer declared c that there is none other presence of Chr? ••
required than a spiritual presence ; and this presence is sufficient for ^
Christian man, as the presence by the which we both abide in Christ,
and Christ in us to the obtaining of eternal life, if we persevere in his
true gospel.52
Bishop Ridley said: *I worship Christ in the sacrament, but not be-
cause he is included in the sacrament : like as I worship Christ also
in the Scriptures, not because he is really included in them. . . . The
body of Christ is present in the sacrament, but yet sacramentally and
spiritually (according to his grace) giving life, and in that respect
really, that is, according to his benediction, giving life. . . . The true
Church of Christ doth acknowledge a presence of Christ's body in the
Lord's Supper to be communicated to the godly by grace, and spiritu-
ally, as I have often showed, and by a sacramental signification, but
not by the corporal presence of the body of his flesh.3
KEVTSION OF THE ARTICLES.
The Thirty-nine Articles have remained unchanged in England since
the reign of Elizabeth. The objections of Nonconformists to some of
1 Works, Vol. I. pp. 394, 395.
a Jones, 1. c. p. 176, where also the passages of the leading divines and bishops of the Eliza-
bethan age on the subject of the Lord's Supper are collected.
3 Bidley's Works, pp. 235 sq. Jewel expresses the same views very fully in his contro-
versy with Harding, Works, Vol. I. pp. 448 sqq. (Parker Soc. ed. 1845). Bishop Brown?
(p. 715) says that all the great luminaries of the Church of England (naming Mede, Andrewes
Hooker, Taylor, Hammond, Cosin, Bramhall, Ussher, Pearson, Patrick, Bull, Beveridge
Wake, Waterland) agree with the doctrine of the formularies in denying a coruoraL and <vc
knowledging a spiritual feeding in the Supper of iha Lo«L
THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM,
the Articles (XXIV., XXV., the affirmative clause of XX., and a por-
tion of XXVII) have been removed since 1688 by relaxation and ex-
emption; and the difficulties arising from the development of theo-
logical schools with widely divergent tendencies, within the bosom of
the Church of England itself, have been met by liberal decisions al-
lowing a great latitude of interpretation.
During the reign of William III., in 1689, a thorough revision of the
Book of Common Prayer was undertaken and actually made in the in-
terest of an agreement with Protestant Dissenters, by an able royal
commission of ten bishops and twenty divines, including the well-known
names of Stillingfleet, Patrick, Tillotson, Sharp, Hall, Beveridge, and
Tenison. But the revision has never been acted upon, and was super-
seded by the toleration granted to Dissenters. The alterations did not
extend to the Articles directly, but embraced some doctrinal features in
the liturgical services — namely, the change of the word Priest to fi Pres-
byter3 or ' Minister;3 Sunday to { Lord's Day;3 the omission of the
Apocryphal Lessons in the calendar of Saints' days, for which chap-
ters from Proverbs and Ecclesiastes were substituted, a concession
to conscientious scruples against kneeling in receiving the sacrament,
and an addition to the rubric before the Athanasian Creed, stating
feat c the condemning clauses are to be understood as relating only to
those who obstinately deny the substance of the Christian faith/ *
§ 82. AMEKICAJST REVISION or THE THIBTY-NINE ARTICLES, A.D. 1801.
WILLIAM WHITE, D.D. (first Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the diocese of Pennsyl-
vania; d. 1836) : Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. New
York, 1820; 3d ed. by De Costa, 1880.
WILLIAM STEVENS PERRY, D.D. (Secretary of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies of the General
Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States) : A Hand-book of the General
Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church, giving ite History and Constitution, 1785-1874. New
York, 1874. The same: Journals of the General Convention, etc., 1785-1835. Claremont, N. H., 1874.
Also SAMTTBL "WILBERFORCE Qate Bishop of Oxford) : A History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in
America (1844); CASWALL: History of the American Church (3d ed. 1851); and PROCTER: A History of
the Book of Common Prayer, pp. 162 sqq. (llth ed. 1874).
For the colonial history, comp. the Historical Collections relating to the American Colonial Church,
ed. by Dr. PEBBY. Hartford, 1871 sqq. 3 vola. 4to.
The members of the Church of England in the American Colonies,
from the first settlement of Virginia (1607) till after the War of the
*A revision of the Book of Common Prayer was adopted by the National Church
Assembly, July, 1927, the vote being 34 to 4 bishops, 255 to 37 clergymen, 230 to 92 lay-
men, but rejected by the House of Commons, Dec., 1927, by a vote of 238 to 205. A
second revision was rejected by the Commons, June 14, 1928, by an increased majority,
266 to 220. The revision seemed to permit the reservation of the sacrament and intro-
duced after the consecration of the elements the epiclesis of the Greek Church, stating
the change of the bread and wine. The Revised Book is issued by the S. P. C. K. — ED.
§ 82. AMERICAN REVISION OF THE ARTICLES. 651
Revolution, belonged to the diocese of the Bishop of London, who
never visited the country, and could exercise but an imperfect super-
vision. Several attempts were made, by the friends of the Church, to
establish colonial bishoprics, but failed.
The separation from the crown of England necessitated an inde-
pendent organization, which assumed the title of THE PKOTESTANT EPIS-
COPAL CHUKCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The first steps
towards such an organization were taken by a meeting of clergy and
laity in New Brunswick, New Jersey, May 11, 1784, and by another and
larger one, held in New York, Oct. 6 and 7, of the same year. The first
General Convention, consisting of sixteen clerical and twenty-six lay
deputies, assembled in Philadelphia, Sept. 27 and 28, 1785, Dr. White
presiding, adopted a constitution and such changes in the Book of Com-
mon Prayer as were deemed necessary to conform it * to the American
Revolution and the Constitutions of the respective States,3 and peti-
tioned the English hierarchy to consecrate such bishops for the inde-
pendent Church as may be elected by the separate dioceses.1 The re-
vised provisional Liturgy was rather hastily prepared and published,
1786. It is called the 'Proposed Book.'2 It contains, besides many
necessary ritual changes and improvements, Twenty Articles of Ee-
ligion, based upon the Thirty-nine Articles, but differing widely from
them, being a mutilation rather than an improvement.3 The altera-
tions and omissions were made in the interest of an unchurchly latitu-
dinarianism which then prevailed. The Nicene Creed and the Athana-
sian Creed, which Art. VIII. of the English series acknowledges, were
entirely omitted in Art. IV. of the new series ; the Apostles' Creed was
retained, but without the clause 'He descended into helL'
1 Shortly before the Convention, Bishop Seabtuy, of Connecticut, had received consecration
at Aberdeen from three Bishops of Scotland (Nov. 14, 1784), but he did not attend the Con-
vention, and was opposed from High-Church principles to the introduction of lay representa-
tion and the limitation of the power of the episcopate.
2 It is sometimes also called * Bishop White's Prater-Book,' who was the chairman of the
committee of revision, Dr. William Smith, of Maryland, and Dr. Wharton, of Delaware, be-
ing the other members. Smith is made chiefly responsible for the changes by Perry, p. 23.
The book was printed in Philadelphia, 1786, in London, 1789, and again (with omission of
the amended Articles of Religion) in New York, Dec., 1873, for provisional use in the new
Reformed Episcopal Church,' which has since adopted a new revision.
3 Given by Perry, Hand-book, pp. 34-39, from the original MSS. in the Convention ar-
chives. He calls the Proposed Book a * hasty, crude, and unsatisfactory compilation, which
failed utterly to establish itself in the American Church* (p. 42).
652 THE CEEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
The book failed to give general satisfaction at home or abroad. The
English Archbishops demanded the restoration of the three (Ecumenical
Creeds in their integrity.1
The General Convention held at Wilmington, Del., Oct. 11, 1786,
complied with this request so far as the Nicene Creed and the discre-
tionary use of the clause of the descent in the Apostles' Creed were
concerned.2 The omission of the Athanasian Creed was adhered to,3
and subsequently acquiesced in by the English Bishops. The obstacle
of the oath of allegiance required in England having been removed by
act of Parliament, the Eev. Drs. White, of Pennsylvania, and Provoost,
of New York, received the long-sought ' Apostolical succession,' in the
chapel of Lambeth Palace, Feb. 4, 1787. At one time this result
seemed so doubtful that steps were taken to secure ordination, with a
broken succession, from the Lutheran bishops of Denmark, and the
consent of the Danish government had actually been obtained, when
the difficulties in England were removed.
In the Special Convention of Philadelphia, June, 1799 (the General
Convention having been prevented in the preceding year by an epi-
demic), a new revision of the Articles of Religion, reduced to seventeen,
was considered, but not finally acted upon by the House of Deputies,
and was printed as an Appendix to the Journal of that House.4 But
it gave no satisfaction, and shared the same fate with the previous
draft of twenty Articles.
Finally, the General Convention held at Trenton, New Jersey, Sept.
3-12, 1801, settled the question by adopting the Thirty-nine Articles
in the form which they have since retained in the American Episcopal
Church, and are incorporated in its editions of the Prayer-Book.5 The
only doctrinal difference is the omission of the Athanasian Creed from
1 See their letter in Perry, pp. 50-55.
3 In the first edition of the new Prayer-Book, 1790, the objectionable clause was printed in
italics, and put in parentheses. But the General Convention of 1792 left it discretionary to
use it, or to omit it, or to substitute for it the words, ' He went into the place of departed
spirits,9 as being equivalent to the word* m the Creed.
3 Bishop Seabury was very zealous for the Athanasian Creed; and in the Convention of
1789 the House of Bishops agreed to its permissory use, but the House of Deputies 'would
not allow of the Creed in any shape/ Bishop White favored a compromise— viz. , to leave it
in the Prayer-Book as a doctrinal document, but not to read it in public worship. See his
Memoirs, pp. 149, 150, and a letter of White, quoted by Perry, p, 76.
4 Perry, pp. 90-95.
5 See Vol. in. pp. 477 sqq., where they are given in full.
§ 82. AMERICAN REVISION OF THE ARTICLES. 653
Art. VIII. ; the remaining changes are political, and adapted to the
separation of Church and State. Otherwise even c the obsolete diction'
is retained. The following is the action of this Convention :l
6 Resolutions of the Bishops, the Clergy, and the Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church
in the United States of America, in Convention, in the city of Trenton, the 12th day of Sep-
tember, in the year of our Lord 1801, respecting the Articles of Religion.
* The Articles of Religion are herehy ordered to be set forth with the following directions,
to be observed in all future editions of the same; that is to say —
* The following to be the title, viz. :
' "Articles of Religion, as established by the Bishops, the Clergy, and the Laity of the Prot-
estant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, in Convention, on the 12th day of
September, in the year of our Lord 1801."
' The Articles to stand as in the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England, with
the following alterations and omissions, viz. :
*In the 8th Article, the word "three" in the title, and the words "three — Athanasius*
creed" in the Article, to be omitted, and the Article to read thus :
6 " AKT. VIII. OF THE CREEDS.
' " The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thor-
oughly to be received and believed, for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy
Scripture. "
' Under the title " Article 21," the following note to be inserted, namely,
4 " The 21st of the former Articles is omitted, because it is partly of a local and civil nat-
ure, and is provided for, as to the remaining parts of it, in other Articles."
' The 35th Article to be inserted with the following note, namely,
* "This Article is received in this Church, so far as it declares the Books of Homilies to be
an explication of Christian doctrine, and instructive in piety and morals. But all references
to the constitution and laws of England are considered as inapplicable to the circumstances
of this Church : which also suspends the order for the reading of said homilies in churches
until a revision of them may conveniently be made, for the clearing of them, as well from ob-
solete words and phrases, as from the local references/'
4 The 36th Article, entitled "Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers," to read thus:
6 " The Book of Consecration of Bishops, and ordering of Priests and Deacons, as set forth
by the General Convention of this Church in 1792, doth contain all things necessary to such
consecration and ordering : neither hath it any thing that, of itself, is superstitious and un-
godly. And, therefore, whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to said form, we de-
crefe all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered."
* The 37th Article to be omitted, and the following substituted in its place :
'"ART. XXXVII. OP THE POWER OP THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE.
* " The power of the civil magistrate extendeth to all men, as well Clergy as Laity, in all
things temporal ; but hath no authority in things purely spiritual. And we hold it to be the
duty of all men who are professors of the gospel, to pay respectful obedience to the civil au-
thority, regularly and legitimately constituted."2
'ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE OP BISHOPS.
WILLIAM WHITE, D.D., PRESIDING BISHOP.
'ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE OP CLERICAL AND LAY DEPUTIES.
ABRAHAM BEACH, D.D., PRESIDENT.''
1 Perry, pp. 99-1 01.
a This Art. appears as the last in the XVII. Articles of 1799.
,554: THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
On the nature and aim of this action. Bishop White remarks : a
* The object kept in view, in all the consultations held, and the determinations formed, was
the perpetuating of the Episcopal Church, on the ground of the general principles which she
had inherited from the Church of England ; and of not departing from them, except so far as
either local circumstances required, or some very important cause rendered proper. To those
acquainted with the system of the Church of England, it must be evident that the object here
stated was accomplished on the ratification of the Articles.7
The only change in the Prayer-Book which has a doctrinal bearing,
besides the omission of the Athanasian Creed, is the insertion of the
Prayer of Oblation and Invocation from the Scotch (and the First Ed-
wardine) Prayer-Book, through the influence of Bishop Seabury, who
had been consecrated in the Scotch Episcopal Church.
§ 83. THE CATECHISMS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. A.D. 1549 AND
1662.
Literature.
The Church Catechism is contained in all the English and American editions of the Book of Common
Prayer, between the baptismal and the confirmation services, and is printed in this work with the
American emendations, Vol. III. pp. 517 sqq. The authentic text of the final revision of 1662 is in the
corrected copy of the Black-Letter Prayer-Book, which was attached to the Act of Uniformity, and has
been repuhlished in fac-simile, Loud. 1871. (It was supposed to be lost, when in 1867 it was discovered
in the Library of the House of Lords.)
ARCHIBALD JOHN STEPHENS: The Book of Common Prayer, with notes legal and historical. Lond. 185i
Pol. IIL pp. 1449-1477.
EBAKOIS PEOOTER : A History of the Book of Common Prayer* llth ed. Lond. 1874, ch. v. sect, i (pp. 397
sqq.).
See other works on the Anglican Liturgy, noticed by Procter, p. viiL
EARLIER CATECHISMS.
The English Church followed the example of the Lutheran and Re-
formed Churches on the Continent in providing for regular catechet-
ical instruction. English versions and expositions of the Lord's Prayer,
the Creed, and the Ten Commandments, with some prayers, were
known before the Reformation, and constituted the * Prymer,' which is
commonly mentioned in the fifteenth century as a well-known book
of private devotion.2 In 1545 Henry VIIL set forth a Primer which
was 'to be taught, learned, and read, and none other to be used
1 Memoirs^ p. 33.
8 The earliest known copy, helonging to the latter part of the Hth century, has heen pub-
Eshed by Maskel in Monumenta ritualia JScclesice Anglican^ Vol. II. It contains Matins
and Hours of our Lady ; Evensong and Compline; the seven Penitential Psalms ; the Psalmi
graduales (Psa. CXX.-CXXXIV.) ; the Litany; Placebo (Vespers); Dirge (the office for
the departed); the Psalms of Commendation; Pater noster; Ave Maria; Creed j Ten
Commandments ; the seven deadly sins. See Procter, p. 15.
§ 88. THE CATECHISMS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
throughout all his dominions.'1 During his reign the curates were
frequently enjoined to teach the people the Lord's Prayer, the Creed,
and the Ten Commandments, sentence by sentence, on Sundays and
Holydays, and to make all persons recite them when they came to
confession.
CEANMEE'S CATECHISM.
6 Cranmer's Catechism,' which appeared with his sanction in 1548,
was for the most part a translation of the Latin Catechism of Justus
Jonas, and retains the Catholic and Lutheran consolidation of the first
and second commandments, and the sacrament of penance or absolu-
tion ; but it was soon superseded.2 Cranmer changed about that time
his view of the real presence.
THE CATECHISM OF THE PEAYEE-BOOK.
When the [Reformation was positively introduced under Edward
VL, and the Book of Public Worship was prepared, a Catechism was
embodied in it, to insure general instruction in the elements of the
1 It contained, besides the contents of the older Primers, the Salutation of the Angel, the
Passion of our Lord, and several prayers. See Procter, p. 15, and Burton, Three Primers, pp.
437 sqq.
3 So Hardwick (Hist, of the Reform, p. 194) and other Episcopal writers. This matter
needs further investigation. The very existence of a Catechism of Jonas is doubted by
Langemack and Monckeberg, who have written with authority on Lather's Catechism. But
it is a fact that Luther, before he prepared his own Catechisms (1529), charged with this task
his colleagues and Mends Justus Jonas and Agricola of Eisleben (who afterwards became
the leader of Antinomian views in opposition to Luther), for he wrote to Hausmann, Feb. 2,
1525 : 'Jonce et Eislebw mandatus est catechismus puerorum parandus* (De Wette, Vol. II. p.
621). This is probably the Catechism which appeared in the same year in a Latin transla-
tion anonymously under the title *Qwo pacto statim a primis annis, pueri debeant in Christi-
anismo institui. Libellus perutilis.1 At the close: ' Impressum Wittembergce per Georgium
Rhaw. An. 1525.' The original German edition has not been traced, but Dr. Schneider has
discovered a copy of an improved German edition, under the title 'Ein Buchlein fur die
kinder gebessert und gemehret. Der Ley en Biblia. Wittemberg, 1528,' and has reproduced it
in the appendix to hi§ critical edition of Luther's Small Catechism, 1853. He leaves it, how-
ever, uncertain whether it was composed by Jonas. Comp. his Introduction, pp. xx sqq.
It consists of a brief exposition of the Ten Commandments, the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the
Sacrament of Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, with an addition on Confession ; and so fa*,
it anticipates the order of Luther's Catechism. This must be the basis of Cranmer's Cate-
chism ; but as the Parker Soc. edition of his works gives only his dedicatory Preface to King
Edward (Vol. II. p. 418), I can not verify the identity. It seems strange that Cranmer did
not translate rather the far more perfect Catechism of Luther. The reason was, no doubt,
his personal acquaintance with the author's son, Justus Jonas, jun., who was recommended
to him by Melanchthon, was very kindly treated bv him, and seems to have been the chief
medium of his communication with the German Lutherans. See Strype's Memoir of Craw
mer. Vol. II. p. 581 ; Laurence, p. 17; and Cranmer s W<*'ks, Vol. II. p. 425.
THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Christian religion. In the Prayer-Books of Edward VI. (1549, 1552}
and Elizabeth (1559) this Catechism bears the title « Confirmation,
wherein is contained a Catechism for Children.5
This work has undergone, with other parts of the Prayer-Book,
sundry alterations. The commandments were given, first very briefly
(as in King Henry's Primer), then in full with a Preface in the edition
of 1552. The explanation of the sacraments was added in 1604 by
royal authority, in compliance with the wish of the Puritans expressed
at the Hampton Court Conference,1 and is attributed to Bishop Overall,
then Dean of St. Paul's. In the last revision of the Prayer-Book, in
1661, the title was changed into ' A Catechism,' and two emendations
were introduced in the answer on Baptism, as follows :
EAELIBB EDITIONS.
What is the outward visible sign or form in
Baptism ?
Water; wherein the person baptized is dip-
ped or sprinkled with it, in the name, etc.
Why then are infants baptized when by
reason of their tender age they can not per-
form them [repentance and faith] ?
Yes ; they do perform them by their Sure-
tieS) who promise and vow them, both in their
names: which when they come to age them-
selves are bound to perform.
EDITION OP 1661 (1662).
What is the outward visible sign or form in
Baptism?
Water; wherein the person is baptised, in
the name, etc.
Why then are infants baptized, when by
reason of their tender age they can not per-
form them?
Became they promise them both by then
Sureties ; which promise, when they come to
age, themselves are bound to perform.
In the explanation of the Commandments the words 'the King anti
his Ministers' were so changed as to read * the Bang and all that ar<*
put in authority under him?
This Catechism is a considerable improvement on the mediaeval
primers, but very meagre if we compare it with the Catechisms of
Luther, Calvin, and other Continental Keformers.
The Nonconformist ministers at the Savoy Conference (April, 1661),
in reviewing the whole Liturgy, objected to the first three questions of
the Catechism, and desired a full exposition of the Lord's Prayer, the
Creed, and the Commandments, and additional questions on the nature
1 Dr. [Reynolds said at that Conference: 'The Catechism in the Common Prayer-Book is
too brief, and that of Mr. Nowell (late Dean of St. Paul's) too long for novices to learn by
Sfiart. I request, therefore, that one uniform Catechism may be made, and none other gen-
erally received. * To this King James replied : * I think the doctor's request very reasonable,
yet so that the Catechism may be made in the fewest and plainest affirmative terms that may
be, — not like the many ignorant Catechisms in Scotland, set out by every one who was th0
ton of a good man.' — Fuller's Church History of Britain, Vol. V.j>. 284.
§ 83. THE CATECHISMS OF THE CHUBCH OF ENGLAND. 657
of faith, repentance, the wo covenants, justification, adoption, regenera-
tion, and sanctification. These censures were not heeded.1
The American Episcopal Church adopted, with the body of the
Book of Common Prayer, the Catechism also, substituting 'the cisdl
authority' for ' the King/ and omitting several directions in the ap-
pended rubrics.
Outside of the Anglican communion *he Catechism is used only by
the Irving? e& vho more nearly approach that Church, especially in
their liturgy, th&a any other*
LARGER CATECHISMS.
The need of a fzzf: 3r Catechism for a more advanced age was felt ia
the Church of England. Such a one was prepared by Poynet, Bishop
of Winchestei , and published, together with the Forty-two Articles, in
Latin and English, in 1553,2 apparently with the approval of Cranmer
and the Convocation.3 On the basis of this, Dean Nowell, of St
Paul's, prepared another in 1562, which was amended, but not formally
approved by Convocation (KTov. 11, 1562), and published (1570) in
several forms — larger, middle, and smaller. The smaller differs but
slightly from that in the Prayer-Book4
Besides these English productions, the Catechisms of (Ecolampadius,
Leo Judse, and especially those of Calvin and Bullinger were exten-
sively used, even in the Universities, during the reign of Elizabeth.5
1 Dr. Shields, in his edition of the Book of Common Prayer as amended ly ike Savoy Con-
ference (Phila. 1867), has inserted the Shorter Westminster Catechism in the place of the
Anglican Catechism. But it does not harmonize with the genius of the Prayer-Book.
2 Both editions are reprinted by the Parker Society in Liturgies, etc., of Edward VL
3 ' Catechisjnus Irevis Christiana disciplines summam continens:1 'A short Catechism, or
plain instruction, containing the sum of Christian learning, set forth by the King's Majesty's
authority, for all schoolmasters to teach.' The authority of this Catechism was afterwards
disputed. See Hardwick, Hist, of the Articles, p. 109.
4 The larger Catechism appeared first in Latin under the title * Catechismus, siveprima insti-
tutio disdplinaque pietatis Christiana, latine explicata. Reprinted in Bishop [Randolph's
Enchirid. Theolog. See Churton's Life of Nowell, pp. 183 sq.,and Lathbury, History of
Convoc. pp. 167 sq.
* Procter says (p. 400): ' Even in 1578, when the exclusive use of NowelTs Catechism had
beeu enjoined in the canons of 1571, those of Calvin, Ballinger, and others were still ordered
hy statute to he used in the University of Oxford.'
THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
§ 84. THE LAMBETH ABTICLKS, A.D. 1595.
Literature.
ArticiM Lambethani. London, 1651. Appended to Elite's Artie. XXXIX. JSccl. Angl. Defen&to; r»
printed 1720.
PBTBR HBYLIN (Arminian) : Historia Quingu-Articularis. London, 1660. Chaps, xx.-xxii. Als«
his History of the Presbyterians.
STRYPK : Life and Acts of John Whitgift, Vols. II. and IE. (Oxford ed. 1822).
THOMAS FTTLLBB : Church History of Britain, Vol. V. pp. 219-227 (Oxford ed. of 1846).
E. HOOKER'S Works, ed. Keble, Vol. I. p. cii. ; Vol. II. p. 752.
COLXIEB : An Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain, Vol. VIL pp. 184-195.
NEAIOS : History of the Puritans, Vol. L pp. 208 sqq. (Harper's ed.).
HABIWICK : History of the Articles of Religion, chap. vii. pp. 162-180, 343-547.
The Lambeth Articles are printed in Vol. IH. p. 523, and also in Strype, Fuller, Collier, and Hard-
wick,Lc.
The LAMBETH ARTICLES have never had full symbolical authority in
the Church of England, but they are of historical interest as showing
the ascendency of the predestinarian system of Calvin in the last
decade of the sixteenth century.1
As Calvin became more fully known in England, he acquired an
authority over the leading divines and the Universities almost as great
is that of St. Augustine during the reign of Edward VI., or, in the
language of Hooker, as that of the ' Master of Sentences' in the palmy
days of scholasticism, 'so that the perfectest divines were judged they
which were skillfullest in Calvin's writings.' Hardwick, speaking of
the latter part of the Elizabethan period, admits that * during an in-
terval of nearly thirty years the extreme opinions of the school of Cal-
vin, not excluding his theory of irrespective reprobation, were predomi-
nant in almost every town and parish/ The stern, bold, uncompromis-
ing predestinarianism of the Geneva Eeformer seemed to furnish the
best antidote to the twin errors of Pelagianism and Popery. The
Puritan party without" an exception, and the great majority of the con-
forming clergy, understood the Articles of Religion as teaching his
doctrines of free-will, election, and perseverance ; but some of them
thought them not strong enough.
1 Puller says (Vol. V. p. 227) : ' All that I will say of the credit of these Articles is this :
that as medals of gold and silver, though they will not pass in payment for current coin, be-
muse not stamped with the King's inscription, yet they will go with goldsmiths for as much
»» they are in weight; so, though these Articles want authentic reputation to pass for pro-
vincial acts, as lacking sufficient authority, yet will they be readily received of orthodox
Christians for as far as their own purity bears conformity to God's Word. . . . Their testi-
mony is an infallible evidence what was the general and received doctrine of England in that
age about the forenamed controversies.'
§ 84. THE LAMBETH ARTICLES, 1595.
The University of Cambridge was a stronghold of the Calvinistic
system. It was taught there by Thomas Cartwright, the Margaret
Professor of Divinity (who, however, was deposed in 1571 for Puritanic
sentiments— d. 1603); William Perkins, Fellow and Tutor of Christ's
College (d.1602);1 and especially by Dr. William Whitaker (Whitta-
ker), the Eegius Professor of Divinity (d. 1595).2
But in the same University there arose an opposition which created
great stir. It began with Baro (Baron), a French refugee, who, by the
favor of Burghley, was promoted to the Margaret Professorship of
Divinity (1574). He inferred from the history of the Ninevites that
God predestinated all men to eternal life, but on condition of their
faith and perseverance.3 For this opinion, which he more fully ex-
plained in a sermon, he was cited before Dr. Goade, the Yice-Chancel-
lor of the University; and although the proceedings were stopped by
the interposition of Burghley, he retired to London (1596), where he
died a few years afterwards. The same cause was taken up more
vigorously by William Barrett, a fellow of Caius College, who, in a
' concio ad clerum,' preached in Great St. Mary's Church, April 29,
1595, indulged in a virulent attack on the honored names of Calvin,
Beza, Peter Martyr, and Zanchius, and their doctrine of irrespective
predestination.
The academic controversy was carried by both parties first to the
Vice-Chancellor and heads of Colleges, and then to Archbishop Whit-
gift, of Canterbury. Whiigift, a High-Churchman and an enemy of
Puritanism, seemed at first inclined to take part with Barrett, but
yielded to the pressure of the University. Barrett was obliged to
admit his ignorance and mistake, and to modify his dogmatic state-
ments. He left England and joined the Church of Rome.
To settle this controversy, and to prevent future trouble, the heads
of the University sent Dr. Whitaker and Dr. Tyndal (Dean of Ely) to
1 He wrote the Golden Cham, or Armitta awea (1592), which contains a very clear, logical
exposition of the predestinarian order of the causes of salvation and damnation. His works
were published in 3 vols. London, 1616-18.
a He wrote the hest defense of the Protestant doctrine of the Scriptures against Bellannina
and Stapleton. His works were published in Latin at Geneva (1610), 2 vols., and in part re-
published by the Parker Society, Cambridge, 1849.
3 Prcelect. in lonam Prophetam, London, 1579, and Concio ad Clerwn, preached in J595.
See the Letter of the heads of Cambridge, March 8, 1595, to Secretary Lord Burghley (CesU),
Chancellor of the University, in Collier, Vol. VII. p. 193.
660 THE CREEDS OF CHBISTENDOM.
London, to confer with the Archbishop and other learned divines.
The result was the adoption of Nine Articles, at Lambeth, Nov. 20 ;
1595.1 They contain a clear and strong enunciation of the predes-
tinarian system, by teaching —
1. The eternal election of some to life, and the reprobation of others
to death.
2. The moving cause of predestination to life is not the foreknow!-
edge of faith and good works, but only the good pleasure of God.
3. The number of the elect is unalterably fixed.
4. Those who are not predestinated to life shall necessarily be
damned for their sins.
5. The true faith of the elect never fails finally nor totally.
6. A true believer, or one furnished with justifying faith, has a full
assurance and certainty of remission and everlasting salvation in
Christ.
7. Saving grace is not communicated to all men.
8. No man can come to the Son unless the Father shall draw him,
but all men are not drawn by the Father.
9. It is not in every one's will and power to be saved.
The Articles were drawn up by Whitaker (who died soon after-
wards), and somewhat modified by the Bishops to make them less ob-
jectionable to anti-Calvinists. Thus the fifth Article originally stated
that true faith could not totally and finally fail < in those who had once
been partakers of it;5 while in the revision the words cin the elect3
(i.e., a special class of the regenerated) were substituted.2 The Arti-
cles thus amended were signed by Archbishop Whitgif t, Dr. Richard
Fletcher,3 Bishop of London, Dr. Richard Vaughan, Bishop elect of
1 This is the correct date, given "by Strype from the authentic MS. copy which is headed,
* Articuli approbctti a reverendissimis dominis D. 2). loanne archi&piscopo Cantvariensi, et jF?i-
chardo episcopo Londinensi, et aliis Theologis, Lambetha, Novembris 20, anno 1595.' Heylin
and Collier give the 10th of November.
3 See the original draft and the comments thereon, in Hardwick, p. 345, where we find the
remark: * In autographo Whitakeri verba erant, "in iis gui semel ejus participes fuerunt ;"
pro quibus a Lambethanis substituta sunt "in electis," sensu plane alio, et ad mentem Augusti-
ni; cum in autographo sintad mentem Calvini. A ugustinus enim opinatus est, ' ' veramfidem guw
per dilectwnem operator, per quam contingit adoptio, justificatio et sanctificatio, posse et inter-
cidi et amitti: fidem veroesse commune donum electis etreprobis, sed perseverantiam ekctispro*
priam:" Calvinus autem, t(veram etjustificantem fidem solis saluandis et electis cont ingere."'
3 Not Eichard Bancroft, as duller states ; for Bancroft was not made Bishop of London
till 1597.
§ 84. THE LAMBETH ARTICLES, 1595. 661
Bangor, and otners. They were also sent to Dr. Hutton, Archbishop of
York, and FX Young, Bishop of Eochester. Hutton indorsed the first
Article with ' verissimum] and approved the rest with the remark that
they could all be plainly collected or fairly deduced from the Script-
ures and tb«i writings of St. Augustine.
Whitgift sent the Lambeth Articles to the University of Cambridge
(Nov. 24), not as new laws and decrees, but as an explanation of certain
points already established by the laws of the land. Bnt inasmuch as
they had not the Queen's sanction (though he states that the Queen was
fully persuaded of the truth of them, which is inconsistent with her
conduct), they should be used privately and with discretion.1
Queen Elizabeth, who had no special liking for Calvinism and dog-
matic controversies, was displeased with the calling of a Synod without
her authority, which subjected the Lambeth divines to prosecution.2
She commanded the Archbishop to recall and suppress those Articles
without delay. At the Hampton Court Conference of King James
and several prelates with the leaders of the Puritans (Jan., 1604), Dr.
Reynolds made the request that € the nine orthodozal assertions con-
cluded on at Lambeth might be inserted into the Book of Articles.33
It is stated that they were exhibited at the Synod of Dort by the En-
glish deputies, as the judgment of their Church on the Arminian con-
troversy. But the anti-Calvinistic reaction tinder the Stuarts grad-
ually deprived them of their force in England, while in Ireland they
obtained for some time a semi-symbolical authority.
It is interesting to compare with the Lambeth Articles a brief pre-
destinarian document of Calvin, recently discovered by the Strasburg
editors of his works,* and a fragment of Hooker on free-will, predesti-
nation, and perseverance. The former is stronger, the latter is milder,
and presents the following slight modification of those Articles:5
1 Heylin endeavors to relieve Whitgiffc from the odium of signing the Lambeth Articles by
casting doubt on his honesty. Whitgift sided with Hooker against Travers, and entertained
Dr. Harsnet in his family, who derided the doctrine of unconditional reprobation in a sermon
at St. Paul's Cross (1584). See Collier, pp. 1 86, 189. But while he may have been opposed
to strict Calvinism, as he certainly was to Puritanism, he seems to have been in fall accord
with the Augustinian infralapsarianism.
3 Fuller (Vol. V. p. 222) relates that the Queen, in her laconic style, reminded the Primate,
half in jest, that by his unauthorized call of a council he had ' incurred the guilt of pramunireS
9 See Fuller, who gives a minute account of this famous Conference, VjL V. p. 275.
4 It is printed in Vol. III. pp. 524 sq. of this work.
1 Hooker's Works, ed. Keble, Vol. H. pp. 752 sq.
THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
* It f olloweth therefore [says Hooker, at the close of his fragment] —
c 1. That God hath predestinated certain men, not all men.
4 2. That the cause moving him hereunto was not the foresight 01
any virtue in us at all.
' 3. That to him the number of his elect is definitely known.
6 4. That it can not be but their sins must condemn them to whom
the purpose of his saving mercy doth not extend.
' 5. That to God's foreknown elect final continuance of grace is given,,
[Art. 6 of the Lambeth series is omitted by Hooker.]
' 6. [7.] That inward grace whereby to be saved is deservedly not
given unto all men.
' 7. [8.] That no man cometh unto Christ whom God by the inward
grace of his Spirit draweth not.
c 8. [9.] And that it is not in every, no, not in any man's own mere
ability, freedom, and power, to be saved, no man's salvation being
possible without grace. Howbeit, God is no favorer of sloth; and
therefore there can be no such absolute decree touching man's salva-
tion as on our part includeth no necessity of care and travail, but shall
certainly take effect, whether we ourselves do wake or sleep.5
§ 85. THE IRISH ARTICLES. AJX 1615.
Literature.
Wvrte of the Most Ren. JAMES USSHEB, D.D., Lord. Archbishop of Armagh, and, Primate of all Ireland.
With a Life of the Author •, and an Account of hi* Writings. By CHABLES BZOHABD BLBINGTON, D.D.
Dublin, 1847, 16 vols. See Vol. T. pp. 88 sqq. and Appendix IV.
CH. HART>\\ IOK : A Hfatorti of the Artfrb* nf Rdi'iiion, pp. 181 sqq., 351 sqq.
JAMES SKATON RKII>, D.D. : History of the Pre«b,nt>'r1an Church in Ireland. Belfast, 1834, 3 vols.
W. D. KIUJBN, D.D. (Presb. Prof, of Eccles. Hist, at Belfast) : The Eccterimtieal History of Ireland from
the Earliest Period to the Present Time. London, 1875, 2 vols. (Vol. L pp. 492 sqq. ; Vol. II. pp. 17 sqq.)
The Irish Articles are printed in Vol. IH. pp. 526 sqq. of this work, in Dr. Elrington's Life of Ussher
(Vol. L Append. IV.), in Hardwick (Append. VL), and in Killen (Vol. I. Append. IIL).
The Protestant clergy in Ireland accepted the English Prayer-Book
in 1560. Whether the Elizahethan Articles of Religion were also
adopted is uncertain.1 At all events, they did not fully satisfy the
1 Archbishop TTssher, in a sermon preached before the English House of Commons, 1621,
declared : « We all agree that the Scriptures of God are the perfect rule of our faith : we all
consent in the main grounds of religion drawn from thence; we all subscribe to the Articles
of Doctrine agreed upon in the Synod of the year 1562.' But he must have understood this
in the general sense of assent, as he was addressing laymen who never subscribed the Arti-
cles. Ellington, p. 43, and Hardwick, p. 1 82. The Irish Church adopted, in 1 566 (1 567), a
'Brief Declaration7 in XII. Articles of Keligion ; but these are substantially the same as the
XL Articles prepared by Archbishop Parker, 1559 or 1560, and provisionally used in England
till 1563. In Ireland they continued in force till 1615. See Elrington, Append. ; Hardwick.
pp. 122, 337 ; and Killen, Vol. I. pp. 395, 515-520.
§ 85. THE IBISH ARTICLES, 1615.
rigorous Calvinism which, caine to prevail there for a period even more
extensivelv than in England, and which found an advocate in an Irish
scholar and prelate of commanding character and learning.
The first Convocation of the Irish Protestant clergy, which took
place after the model of the English Convocation, adopted a doctrinal
formula of its own, under the title c Articles of Religion, agreed upon
by the Archbishops and Bishops, and the rest of the clergy of Ireland,
in the Convocation holden at Dublin in the year of our Lord God
1615, for the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and the establishing
of consent touching true religion.5
They were drawn up by JAMES UssHER,1 head of the theological
faculty and Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College, Dublin, afterwards
Archbishop of Armagh, and Primate of all Ireland. He was born
in 1580, died 1656, and was buried in Westminster Abbey by or-
der of Cromwell. He was the greatest theological and antiquarian
scholar of the Episcopal Church of his age, and was highly esteemed
by Churchmen and Puritans, being a connecting link between the
contending parties. He was elected into the Westminster Assembly
of Divines, but the King's prohibition and his loyalty to the cause of
the crown and episcopacy forbade him to attend. He had an extraor-
dinary familiarity with Biblical and patristic literature, and, together
with his friend Yossius of Holland, he laid the foundation for a criti-
cal investigation of the oecumenical creeds. Whether formally com-
missioned by the Convocation or not, he must, from his position, hav&
had the principal share in the preparation of those Articles. They are
c in strict conformity with the opinions he entertained at that period of
his life/2
By a decree of the Synod appended to the Dublin Articles, they
were to be a rule of public doctrine, and any minister who should
publicly teach any doctrine contrary to them, and after due admonition
should refuse to conform, was to be 'silenced and deprived of all spirit-
ual promotions.5 The Viceroy of Ireland, in the name of King James,
gave his approval. James, with all his high notions of episcopacy and
1 He and his family spell the name with double s (Latin, Usserius), but it is often spelled
Usher.
2 Dr. Ellington, Life of J. Ussher, pp. 43, 44. Comp. also the 'Body of Divinity,' which
was published in Ussher's name during the sessions of the Westminster Assembly, and which
he admitted to have compiled, in early life, from the writings of others.
VOL. L-Uu
6(54 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
hatred of Puritanism, was a Oalvinist in theology, and countenanced
the Synod of Dort It is stated that the adoption of this Confession
induced Oalvinistic ministers of Scotland to settle in Ireland.1
But in the reign of Charles I. and his adviser. Archbishop Laud, a
reaction set in against Calvinism, An Irish Convocation in 1635,
under the lead of the Earl of Stratford, Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland,
and his chaplain, John Bramhall (one of the ablest High-Church Epis-
copalians, who was made Bishop of Londonderry, 1634, and Arch-
bishop of Armagh, 1661 — died, 1663), adopted the Thirty-nine Articles
' for the manifestation of agreement with the Church of England in
the confession of the same Christian faith and the doctrine of the sac-
raments.3 This act was intended quietly to set aside the Irish Articles ;
and hence they were ignored in the canons adopted by that convoca-
tion.2 Ussher, however, who continued to adhere to Calvinism, though
on terms of friendship with Land, required subscription to both series,
and in a contemporary letter to Dr. Ward he says : ' The Articles of
Religion agreed upon in our former Synod, anno 1615, we let stand as
we did before. But for the manifestation of our agreement with the
Church of England, we have received and approved your Articles also,
concluded in the year 1562, as you may see in the first of our Canons.' 3
After the Restoration the Dublin Articles seem to have been lost sight
of, and no mention was made of them when, in the beginning of the
nineteenth century, the English and Irish establishments were con-
solidated into < the United Church of England and Ireland.5 4
The Irish Articles are one hundred and four in number, arranged
under nineteen heads. They are a clear and succinct system of di-
vinity, in full harmony with Calvinism, excepting the doctrine of the
ecclesiastical supremacy of the crown (which is retained from the
English Articles). They incorporate the substance of the Thirty-nine
Articles and the Lambeth Articles, but are more systematic and com-
plete. They teach absolute predestination and perseverance, denounce
the Pope as Antichrist, inculcate the Puritan view of Sabbath observ-
1 Kfflen, Vol. I. p. 495.
3 Killen, Vol. II. p. 23 : * The silence of the canons in respect to the Calvinistic formulary,
now nearly twenty years in use, was fatal to its claims, and thus it was quietly superseded.
Heylin errs in stating (Life of Laud) that the Dublin Articles were actually * called in.'
3 Elrington, Life, p. 176.
* Hardwick, p. 190,
§ 80. ARTICLES OF THE REFOBMED EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 1875.
ance, and make no mention of three orders in the ministry, nor of the
necessity of episcopal ordination. In all these particulars they pre-
pared the way for the doctrinal standards of the Westminster Assem-
bly. They were the chief basis of the Westminster Confession, as is
evident from the general order, the headings of chapters and sub-
divisions, and the almost literal agreement of language in the state-
ment of several of the most important doctrines.1
§ 86. THE AJOTCLES OF THE REFORMED EPISCOPAL CHURCH. A.D. 1875.
Literature.
Reformed Episcopal Church, on the isth day of May, in the year of our Lord 1875. New York (38 Bible
House), 18T6. They are printed in the last section of the third volume of this work.
II. THE BOOK or COMMON PBAYEB OF THE REFOEMED EPISCOPAL CBUBOH. Adopted and set forth for use
oy the Second General Council of the said Church, held in the City of New York, May, 1874. Philadelphia
(James A. Moore), 1874. (This took the place of the 'Proposed Book' of 1786, republished for pro-
visional use in Dec., 1873.)
m. Journal of the First General Council of the Reformed Episcopal Church, held in Few York Dec 2.
1873. New York, 1873. '
Journal of the Proceedings of the Second General Council of the Ref. Epis. Church, held in New York
Philadelphia, 1874.
Journal of the Proceedings of the Third General Council of the Ref. Epis. Church, held in Chicago
Illinois, May 12 to May 18,1875. Philadelphia, 1875.
IV. Bishop GEOEGE DAVID CUMMINS: Primitive Episcopacy: A Return to the Old Paths of Scripture
and the Early Church. A Sermon preached in Chicago, Dec. 14, 1873, at the Consecration of the Rev. Charles
Edward Cheney, D.D., as a Bishop in the Ref. Epte. Church. New York, 1874.— By the same: The Lord's
Table, and not the A Itar. New York, 1875.
Bishop CHAS. EBW. CHENEY: The Evangelical Ideal of a Visible Church (a sermon). Philadelphia, 1874,
JAMBS A. LATANE : Letter of Resignation to Bishop Johns of Virginia. Wheeling, Va., 1874.
Bishop W. R. NNIHOLSON: R<-awm why I became a Reformed Episcopalian. Philadelphia, 1875.
BENJ. AYOBIGG : Memoirs of the Ref. Epis. Church, and of the Prot. Epis. Church. N. Y., 1875 ; 2d ed., 188S-
Before closing this section we must notice a recent American re-
construction of the English Articles of Religion, which goes much
farther than the revision of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and is
disowned by it, but must still be considered as an offshoot from the
same root. We mean the ' Articles of Religion' set forth in 1875 by
the REFORMED EPISCOPAL CHTJBGE.
ORIGIN.
This body seceded from the Protestant Episcopal Church in the
United States under the lead of the Rev. Dr. GEORGE DAVID CUMMINS,
Assistant Bishop of the Diocese of Kentucky (d. 1876). The reason of
1 This agreement has been proved by Professor Mitchell, D.D., of St. Andrews, in his
tract The Westminster Confession of Faith, 3d ed., Edinburgh, 1867, and in the Introduction
to his edition of the Minutes of the Westminster Assembly, 1874, pp. xlvi. sqq. We shall
return to the subject more fully in the section on the Westminster Confession.
666 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
his sudden and unexpected resignation was his dissatisfaction wi.tii
High-Church ritualism and exclusiveness, and his despair of checking
their progress within the regular Episcopal Church. The occasion was
the manifestation of this exclusiveness in a public protest of the Bishop
of the diocese of New York against the General Conference of the
Evangelical Alliance in Oct., 1873, and against the interdenominational
communion services, in which Bishop Cummins, together with the Dean
of Canterbury (with the full approval of the Archbishop of Canter-
bury), had taken a prominent part.1 He compared his conduct with
the Old Catholic reaction against modern Eomanism.2 He desired
simply to organize the theology and polity of the Low-Church party
on the historic basis of the American Episcopal Church itself in its
initial stage, as represented by Bishop White and the first bishops of
Virginia and New York. Hence his return to the c Proposed Book3 of
1785, and to the labors of the Eoyal Commission in 1689.
The resignation of Bishop Cummins was followed by his canonical
deposition. The majority of his brethren preferred to fight the battle
within the old Church, or quietly to wait for a favorable reaction, and
strongly disapproved of his course.3 Others deprecated from principle
the multiplication of denominations, and feared that the new sect
might become narrower than the old. Still others, though unwilling
to share the risk and responsibility, wished it well, in the hope that it
might administer a wholesome rebuke to the hierarchical spirit. A
small number of Low-Church clergymen and laymen followed his ex-
ample. A new ecclesiastical organization, under the name of the EE-
FOBMED EPISCOPAL CHTTEOH, was effected at a council held in the
1 In his letter of resignation to Bishop B. B. Smith, of Kentucky, dated Nov. 10, 1873,
Cummins alludes to those solemn services, and adds : « As I can not surrender the right and
privilege thus to meet my fellow-Christians of other Churches around the tahle of our dear
Lord, I must take my place where I can do so without alienating those of my own household
of faith. I therefore leave the communion in which I have labored in the sacred ministry for
over twenty-eight years, and transfer my work and office to another sphere of labor.'
a There is, however, this material difference, that the Episcopal Church as a body has not
altered her creed, nor added new dogmas, as the Eoman Church has done in the Vatican
Council.
3 Though a gentleman of unblemished moral character, he was publicly charged by one of
his evangelical fellow-bishops with the threefold crime of breaking his ordination vows,
creating a schism, and consecrating, single-handed, a deposed clergyman (Dr. Cheney, of
Chicago) to the episcopate. The last act was considered the crowning offense ; For thereby
he destroyed the monopoly of the apostolic succession, which, in the estimation of many
modern Episcopalians, is the article of a standing or falling Church.
§ 86. ARTICLES OF THE BEFOEMED EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 1875. 667
Young Men's Christian Association building, 'at New York, Dec. 2,
1873.1 It set forth the following
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES :
I. The Reformed Episcopal Church, holding * the faith once delivered unto the saints,' de-
clares its belief in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and Kew Testaments as the Word of God,
and the sole Rule of Faith and Practice ; in the Creed ' commonly called the Apostles'
Creed ;' in the divine Institution of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Sapper ; and
in the doctrines of grace substantially as they are set forth in the Thirty-nine Articles of Be-
ligion.
II. This Church recognizes and adheres to Episcopacy, not as of divine right, but as a
very ancient and desirable form of church polity.
III. This Church, retaining a Liturgy which shall not be imperative or repressive of free-
dom in prayer, accepts the Book of Common Prayer, as it was revised, proposed, and recom-
mended for use by the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church, A.D. 1785,
reserving full liberty to alter, abridge, enlarge, and amend the same, as may seem most con-
ducive to the edification of the people, ' provided that the substance of the faith be kept entire.'
IV. This Church condemns and rejects the following erroneous and strange doctrines as
contrary to God's Word :
First, That the Church of Christ exists only in one order or form of ecclesiastical polity.
Second, That Christian ministers are 'priests' in another sense than that in which all be-
lievers are ' a royal priesthood.*
Third, That the Lord's Table is an altar on which the oblation of the Body and Blood of
Christ is offered anew to the Father.
Fourth, That the Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper is a presence in the elements of
Bread and Wine.
Fifth, That Begeneration is inseparably connected with Baptism.
The next work was the revision of the Liturgy on the basis of the
' Proposed Book' of 1785, by the Second Council, held at New York,
1874 The Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed were retained, but
the clause * He descended into hell3 was stricken out from the former.
In the baptismal service, thanksgiving for the regeneration of the child
was omitted. Throughout the book the words ' minister ' and * Lord's
table3 were substituted for 'priest3 and 'altar' — a change which had
been proposed long before by the English commission of 1689.
THE ARTICLES OF BELIGION.
A considerable number of the Western members of this new de-
nomination were in favor of adopting simply the Apostles' Creed and
the Nine Articles of the Evangelical Alliance. But the majority in-
sisted on retaining the Thirty-nine Articles with a few changes. The
1 It has since grown steadily, though by no means rapidly. It numbers now (1 884) ten bish-
ops, ninety-eight presbyters, and about as many congregations in the United States, Canada,
British Columbia, Bermuda Islands, and England. The number of communicants is about
7000. See art* £piscopal Chwch* Reformed^ by Eev. W. T. Sabine, in Schaff-Herzog Encych
668 THE CREEDS OT CHBISTENDOM.
revision was intrusted 'to a Committee of Doctrine and Worship, con-
sisting of Eev. W. E. Nicholson, D.D. (since consecrated Bishop, March,
1876), Eev. B. B. Leacock, D.D., Eev, Joseph D. Wilson, and some
laymen. The report of the committee was amended and adopted at
the Third General Council, held in Chicago, May 12-18, 1875.
The Articles of Eeligion are thirty-five in number. They follow
the order of the Thirty-nine Articles, and adhere to them in language
and sentiment much more closely than the Twenty Articles of the
c Proposed Book3 of 1785 and the Seventeen Articles of the Episcopal
Convention of 1799. Articles 1 and 2, of the Trinity and Incarnation,
are retained with slight verbal alterations. Art. 3, of the descent of
Christ into Hades, is omitted. Art. 3, of the Eesurrection ' and the
Second Coming5 of Christ, Art. 4, of the Holy Ghost, and Art. 5, of the
Holy Scriptures, are enlarged. Art. 8, of the old series, concerning the
three creeds, is omitted; but in Art. 22 the Nicene Creed and the
Apostles' Creed are acknowledged. The Articles of free-will, justifica-
tion, and good works are retained, with some enlargements on justifica-
tion by faith alone (which Bishop Cummins regards with Luther as
the article of a standing or falling Church). Art. 18 is an abridgment
of Art. 17, but affirms, together with predestination and election, also
the doctrine of human freedom and responsibility, without attempting
a reconciliation. The Articles of the Church and Church Authority
are enlarged, but not altered in sense. Art. 24 wholly rejects the doc-
trine of c Apostolic Succession5 as c unscriptural and productive of
great mischief;5 adding/ This Church values its historic ministry, but
recognizes and honors as equally valid the ministry of other Churches,
even as God the Holy Ghost has accompanied their work with demon-
stration and power.' Baptism is declared to be only ( a sign of regen-
eration' (not an instrument). Art. 27 rejects consubstantiation as well
as transubstantiation, as c equally productive of idolatrous errors and
practices,5 but otherwise agrees with Art. 28 of the old series. Arts. 31
and ,32 reject purgatory, the worship of saints and images, confession
Dr absolution, and other Eomish practices. Art. 34, of the power of
the civil authority, is the same as Art. 37 of the Protestant Episcopal
Church (retained from the draft of 1799), except that the words 'as
well clergy as laity ? are exchanged for < as well ministers as people.'
§ 87, THE KEFOKMATION IN SCOTLAND. 669
VI. THE PRESBYTERIAN COOTESSIONS OP SCOTLAND.
§ 87. THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND.
Literature.
I. CONFESSIONS.
[WM. DUNXOP] : A Collection of Confessions of Faith, Catechisms, Directories, Books of Discipline, etc., <tf
publick Authority in the Church of Scotland. Edinburgh, 1719-22, 2 vols.
HOBATIUS BON AB : Catechisms of the Scottish Reformation. With Preface and Notes. London, 1866.
ALEXANDER TAYLOK INNES (Solicitor before the Supreme Court of Scotland): The Law of Greeds in
Scotland. A Treatise on the Legal delation of Churches in Scotland, established and not established, to their
Doctrinal Standards. Edinburgh, 1867 (pp. 495).
II, HlSTOBY OF THE REFOBMATION AND CHURCH IN SCOTLAND.
WODBOW SOCIETY'S PUBLICATIONS: 24 vols. 8vo. Lond. 1842 sqq. Comprising Knox's Works, Calder-
wood's History of the Kirk of Scotland, Autobiography of Robert Blair (1593-1636), Scott's Apologetical
Narration (1560-1633), Twedie's Select Biographies, The Wodrow Correspondence, and other works. (The
Wodrow Society was founded in 1841, in honor of Robert Wodrow, an indefatigable Scotch Presbyterian
historian, b. 1679, d. 1734, for the publication of the early standard writings of the Reformed Church of
Scotland.)
SPOTTISWOODE SOCIETY'S PUBLICATIONS, 16 vols. Svo. Edinburgh, 1844 sq.q. Comprising Keith's His-
tory (to 1568), the Spottiswoode's History and Miscellany, etc.
JOHN KNOX (1505-1572) : Historic of the Reformation of Religioun in Scotland (till 1567). Edinburgh,
1584; London, 1664; better ed. by McGavin, Glasgow, 1831. Best ed. in complete Works, edited by
David Laing, Edinburgh, 1846-64. 6 vols. (The first two vols. contain the History of the Reformation,
including the Scotch Conf. of Faith and the Book of Discipline.)
GEOBGE BUCHANAN (1506-1582): Rerum Scoticarum Historia. Edinburgh, 1582; Aberdeen, 1762 ; in
English, 1690.
JOHN SPOTTISWOOI>E : History of the Church and State of Scotland (from 203 to the death of James VL).
London, 1668; 4th ed. 1677; ed. by the Spottiswoode Society, Edinburgh, 1847-51, in 3 vols. (John
Spotswood, or Spottiswoode, was b. 1565 ; Archbishop of Glasgow, 1603, and then of St. Andrew's, 1615,
and Chancellor of Scotland, 1635 ; the first in the succession of the modified Scotch episcopacy introduced
by James ; was obliged to retire to England, and died in London, 1639.)
DAVID CALDEBWOOD (a learned and zealous defender of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, d.1650):
The History of the Kirk of Scotland. (London, 1678.) New ed. by Thomas Thomson. Edinburgh,
1842-49, 8 vols. (Wodrow Soc.)
Sir JAMES BALFOUB (King-at-arms to Charles L and IT.) : Historical Works published from the Original
MSS. Edinburgh, 1824, 4 vols. (Contains the Ammia and Memorials of Church and State in Scotland,
from 1057 to 1652.)
ROBT. KEITH (Primus Bishop of the Scotch Episcopal Church, Bishop of Fife, d. 1757) : History of the
A/airs of Church and State in Scotland, from the Beginning of the Reformation to the Retreat of Queen
Mary into England, 156& Edinburgh, 1734, fol. (reprinted by the Spottiswoode Soc. in 2 vols. Svo). By
the same : A n Historical Catalogue of the Scottish Bishops down to the year 1688. New ed. by M. Russell.
Edinburgh, 1824.
GILBERT STUABT (d. 1786) : History of the Reformation of Religion in Scotland (1517-1561). London, 1780
and 1796. By the same: History of Scotland from the Establishment of the Reformation m the Death of
Queen Mary. London, 1783, 1784, 2 vols. (In vindication of Queen Mary.)
GEOEGE COOK : History of the Reformation in Scotland. Edinburgh, 2d ed. 1819, 2 vols. By the same :
History of the Church of Scotland, from theReformaUon to the Revolution. Edinburgh, 1815, 2d ed. 1819,3
vols.
THOMAS M'CsiE (d. 1835) : Life of John Knox. Edinburgh, 1811, 2 vote. 9th ed. 1831, and often ; Phila-
delphia, 1845; Works of M'Crie, 1858. By the same: Lifeof Andrew Melville. London, 1819 ; 1847, 2 vols.
THOMAS M*CBIE, Jnn. : Sketches of ScotKsh Church History. 2d ed. 1843.
Prince ALEX. LABANOFF : Lettres, Instructions, et Memoirs de Marie Stuart. London, 1844, 7 vols.
THOMAS STEPHEN : History of the Church of Scotland from the Reformation to the Present Time. Lon-
don, 1843-45, 4 vols.
W. M. EETHERINGTON (Free Church) : History of the Church of Scotland till 1843. 4th ed. Edinburgh,
1853 (also New York, 1845), 2 vols.
Gen. VON RUDLOFF : Geschichte der Reformation in SchotOand. Berlin, 1847-49, 2 vols. 2d ed. 1854.
G. WEBER : Gesch. der akatholischen Kirchen u. Secten in Grossbritannien. Leipzig, 1845 and 1353 (Veil
I. pp. 607-652 ; Vol. n. pp. 461-660).
670 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
JOHN CUNNINGHAM (Presbyt.) : Church History of Scotland to the Present Time. 1S59. 2 vols.
JOHN LEE : Lectures on the History of the Church of Scotland. Edinburgh, I860, 2 vols.
GEORGE QETTJB (Liberal Episcopalian) : Ecclesiastical History of Scotland. London, 1861, 4 vols.
A. TEULET: Relation politiques de la France et de VEspagne avec VEcosse, en 16me wcle. Paris, 1862, 5
vols.
FB. BBANBES : John Knox, der Reformator Schottlands. Elberfeld, 1S62. (The 10th vol. of Fathers and
Founders of the Reformed Church.)
MERLE D'AUBIGNE (d. 1872): History of the Reformation in Europe, in the Time of Calvin. Vol. VL
(1876), chaps. i.-xv. (to 1546). Comp. also his Three Centuries of Struggle (1850).
Dean STANLEY (Broad-Church Episcopalian) : Lectures on the History of the Church of Scotland, de-
livered in Edinburgh in 1872 (with a sermon on the Eleventh Commandment, preached in Greyfriars1
Church). London and New York, 1872.
Prof. R. KA.INY (Free-Church Presbyterian) : Three Lectures on the Church of Scotland (against Stan-
ley's praise of Moderatism). Edinburgh, 1872.
GEO. P. FISHER: History of the Reformation, pp. 351 sqq. (New York, 1873).
PETER LOBIMJUR, D.D. (Prof, in the English Presbyterian College, London) : Patrick Hamilton (London,
1857) ; The Scottish Reformation (1860) ; John Knox and the Church of England (Loudoo, 1875).
Compare also the general and secular Histories of Scotland by HOBEBTSON (1759 and often, 2 vols.);
PINKERTON (1814, 2 vols.) • P. F. TITLES (1828-43, 9 vols., new ed. 1866, 10 vols.) ; JOHN HILL BUUTON
(from Agricola's Invasion to the Revolution of 1688. London, 1867-70, 7 vols.— From 16S9 to 1748. 1870,
2 vols.) ; the chapters relating to Scotland in the Histories of England by HUME, LINGARD (Rom. Cath.),
KNIGHT, KANKE, FROTJDE.
The Reformation in Scotland was far more consistent and radical
than in England, and resulted in the establishment of Calvinistic Pres-
byterianism under the sole headship of Christ. While in England
politics controlled religion, in Scotland religion controlled politics. The
leading figure was a plain presbyter, a man as bold, fearless, and un-
compromising as Cranmer was timid, cautious, and conservative. In
England the crown and the bishops favored the Reformation, in Scot-
land they opposed it; but Scotch royalty was a mere shadow com-
pared with the English, and was, during that crisis, represented by a
woman as blundering and unfortunate as Elizabeth was sagacious
and successful. George Buchanan, the Erasmus of Scotland, the
classical tutor of Mary and her son James, maintained, as the Scotch
doctrine, that governments existed for the sake of the governed, which
in England was regarded at that time as the sum of all heresy and
rebellion.1 When James became king of England, he blessed God's
gracious goodness for bringing him 'into the promised land, where
religion is purely professed, where he could sit amongst grave, learned,
and reverend men; not as before, elsewhere, a king without state,
without honor, without order, where beardless boys would brave him
totheface.'3
1 His book, Dejure regni apud Scotos (1569), was burned at Oxford in 1683, together with
the works of Milton.
2 So he addressed the English prelates at the Hampton Court Conference, duller, Church
History of Britai n, Vol. V. pp. 267 s<j.
§ 87. THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND. 671
The Scotch Eeformation was carried on, agreeably to the character
of the people of that age and country, with strong passion and violence,
and in close connection with a political revolution; but it elevated
Scotland at last to a very high degree of religious, moral, and intel-
lectual eminence, which contrasts most favorably with its own me-
diaeval condition, as well as with the present aspect of Southern Ro-
man Catholic countries, once far superior to it in point of civilization
and religion.1
In the middle of the sixteenth century the Scotch were still a semi-
barbarous though brave and energetic race. Their character and
previous history are as wild and romantic as their lochs, mountains,
and rapids, and show an exuberance of animal life, full of blazing
passions and violent commotions, but without ideas and progress. The
kings of the house of Stuart were in constant conflict with a restless
and rebellious nobility and the true interests of the common people.
The history of that ill-fated dynasty, from its fabulous patriarch
Banquo, in *ke eleventh century, down to the execution of Queen Mary
(1587), and the final expulsion of her descendants from England (1688)5
is a series of tragedies foreshadowed in Shakspere's ' Macbeth/ where
crimes and retributions come whirling along like the rushing of a furi-
ous tempest. The powerful and fierce nobility were given to the chase
and the practice of arms, to rapine and murder. Their dress was that
of the camp or stable ; they lived in narrow towers, built for defense,
without regard to comfort or beauty. They regarded each other as
rivals, the king as but the highest of their own order, and the people
as mere serfs, who lived scattered under the shadow of castles and con-
vents. The patriarchal or clan system which prevailed in the High-
lands, and the feudal system which the Norman barons superinduced
1 Thomas Carlyle calls the Scotch Reformation * a resurrection from death to life. It was
not a smooth business; hut it was welcome surely, and cheap at that price; had it been far
rougher, on the whole, cheap at any price, as life is. The people began to live ; they needed
first of all to do that, at what cost and costs soever. Scotch literature and thought, Scotch
industry; James Watt, David Hume, Waiter Scott, Robert Burns: I find Knox and the
Reformation acting in the heart's core of every one of these persons and phenomena ; I find
that without the Reformation they would not have been. Or what of Scotland ? The Pur~
itanism of Scotland became that of England, of New England. A tumult in the High Church
of Edinburgh spread into a universal battle and struggle over all these realms ; then came
out, after fifty years' struggling, what we call the glorious Revolution, a Habeas-Corpus Act.
Free Parliaments, and much else !7— Heroes^ Lect. IV.
TfiE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
in the south, kept the nation divided into a number of jealous and
conflicting sections, and made the land a scene of chronic strife and
anarchy.
In this unsettled state of society morals and religion could not flour-
ish. The Church kept alive the faith in the verities of the super-
natural world, restrained passion and crime, distributed the consolations
of religion from the cradle to the grave, and built such monuments as
the Cathedral of Glasgow and the Abbey of Melrose ; but it left the
people in ignorance and superstition. It owned the full half of all the
wealth of the nation from times when land was poor and cheap, and
it had the controlling influence in the privy council, the parliament,
and over the people. But this very wealth and political power be-
came a source of corruption, which rose to a fearful height before the
Reformation. The law of celibacy was practically annulled, and the
clergy were shamefully dissolute and disgracefully ignorant. Some
priests are said to have regarded Luther as the author of the New
Testament. The bishops and abbots, by frequently assisting the king
against the nobles, and rivaling with them in secular pomp and in-
fluence, excited their envy and hatred, which hastened their ruin.
Owing to its remoteness, poverty, and inhospitable climate, Scotland
was more free than England from the interference of the pope and his
Italian creatures. But this independence was rather a disadvantage,
for without preventing the progress of the native corruptions, it kept
off the civilizing influences of the Continent, and removed the check
upon the despotism of the king. James III. usurped the right of fill-
ing the episcopal vacancies without the previous election of the chap-
ters and the papal sanction, and consulted his temporal interest more
than that of religion. Simony of the most shameful kind became the
order of the day. James V. (1528-42) provided for his illegitimate
children by making them abbots and priors of Holyrood House, Kelso,
Melrose, Coldingham, and St. Andrew's. Most of the higher dignities
of the Church were in the hands of the royal favorites arid younger
sons of the nobility, who were sometimes not ordained, nor even of age,
but who drew, nevertheless, the income of the cathedrals arid abbeys,
and disgraced the holy office. 'By this fraudulent and sacrilegious
dealing' — says an impartial old authority — 'the rents and benefices of
the Church became the patrimony of private families, and persons in
§ 88. JOHN KNOX. 673f
no ecclesiastical orders, and even boys too, were, by the presentation of
our kings and the provision of the popes, set over the episcopal sees
themselves. The natural result of this was that by far too many of
these prelates, being neither bred up in letters, noT having in them any
virtuous dispositions, did not only live irregularly themselves, but
through neglect of their charge did likewise introduce by degrees such
a deluge of ignorance and vice among the clergy and all ranks of men
that the state of the Church seemed to call loudly for a reformation
of both.'
The first impulse to the Reformation in Scotland came from Lu-
theran writings and from copies of Tyndale's New Testament. The first
preachers and martyrs of Protestantism were Patrick Hamilton, who
had studied in Wittenberg and Marburg, and was burned (1528), G-eorge
Wishart, who shared the same fate (154:6), and the aged Walter Mill,
who predicted from the flames (Aug. 28, 1558), * A hundred better men
shall rise out of the ashes of my bones, and I shall be the last to suffer
death in Scotland for this cause.'
In the mean time God had prepared the right man for this crisis.
§ 88. JOHN KNOX
Literature.
Besides the works of KNOX, the excellent biography of M'CEIE, and LOBHEEB'S monograph quoted in
the preceding section, comp. FBOTOJB'S Lecture on The Influence of the Reformation on the Scottish Char-
acter, 1865 (in Short Studies on Great Sutgects, Vol. I. pp. 128 sqq.}, and an exceedingly characteristic es-
say of THOMAS CABLYLE on the Portraits of John Knosc, which first appeared in Fraser's Magazine for
April, 1875, and then as an appendix to his Early Kings of Norway. London, 1875 (pp. 209-307), and
New York (Harper's ed. pp. 173-267). Brandes follows M'Crie very closely. Laing, in the first vol. of
his edition of Knox's History of the Reformation (pp. xilL-xliv.), gives a convenient chronological sum-
mary of the chief events of his life.
JOHJT KNOX (1505-1572), the Luther of Scotland, was educated in
the University of Glasgow, and ordained to the Romish priesthood
(1530), but became a convert to Protestantism (1545, the year of
Wishart's martyrdom 1 ) through the study of the Bible and the writ-
ings of Augustine and Jerome. He went at once to the extreme of
opposition, as is often the case with strong and determined characters
of the Pauline type. He abhorred the mass as an c abominable idolatry
and profanation of the Lord's Supper,3 and popery as the great anti-
Christian apostasy and Babylonish harlot predicted in the Bible.*
1 This is the date given by Laing, while M'Crie assigns Knox's conversion to the year 1542.
3 His first Protestant sermon in the parish .church at Sk Andrew's was on Ban. vii,, to
674 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
After preaching awhile to the Protestant soldiers in the garrison of
St. Andrew's, he was taken prisoner by the French fleet (1547), and
made a galley-slave for nineteen months, 'going in irons, miserably
entreated and sore troubled by corporal infirmity.' Kegardless of
danger, he remained true to his faith. When called upon to kiss an
image of the Holy Virgin, he declared that it was 'no mother of God,
but a painted piece of wood, fit for swimming rather than being wor-
shiped ;3 and he flung the picture into the river Loire.
On obtaining his liberty, he labored five years (1549-1554) in En-
gland as a pioneer of English Puritanism. He preached in Berwick,
on the borders of Scotland, in Newcastle, and in London. He was
elected one of the six chaplains of Edward VI. (1551), was consulted
about the Articles of Eeligion and the revision of the Liturgy, and was
offered the bishopric of Eochester, which he declined from opposition
to the large extent of dioceses, the secular business, vestments, and
* other popish fooleries remaining.' 1
After the accession of Bloody Mary he fled among the last, at the
urgent request of friends, to the Continent, aud spent five years (from
January, 1554, to January, 1559, interrupted by a journey to Scot-
land, November, 1555, to July, 1556), at Frankfort-on-the-Main3 and
especially at Geneva. Here he found 'the most perfect school of
Christ that ever was since the days of the Apostles.' Though four
years older, he sat an admiring pupil at the feet of John Calvin, and
became more Calvinistic than the great Beformer. He preached to a
flock of English exiles, took part in the Geneva version of the Bible,
and aided by his pen the cause of evangelical religion in England and
Scotland.
The accession of Queen Elizabeth opened the way for his final re-
turn and crowning work, although she refused him passage through
her dominion, and never forgave him his 'blast' at the dignity and
ruling capacity of her sex.2
prove that the pope was the last beastj the man of sin, the Antichrist. Some of the hearers
said : ' Others hewed at the branches of papistry, but he struck at the root to destroy the
whole.' Calderwood, Vol. I. p. 230 ; Knox's Works, Vol. I. p. 192.
1 His labors in England, and the reasons for his nob episcopari, are fully described by Dr.
Lorimer, in part from unpublished sources.
* Before his return, while the fires of Smithfield were still burning, he had published
anonymously his 'First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment p. e.7 regimen
§ 88. JOHN KNOX. 675
The remaining twelve years of his life were devoted to the fierce
struggle and triumph of the Eeformation in his native land, which he
has himself so vividly, truthfully, and unselfishly described in his His-
tory.1 Shortly before his death he heard the news of the terrible
massacre of the Huguenots on St. Bartholomew's night, and summoning
up the remainder of his broken strength, he thundered from the pul-
pit in Edinburgh his indignation and the vengeance of God against
'that cruel murderer and false traitor, the King of France5 (Charles
IX.). His last sermons were on our Lord's crucifixion, a theme on
which he wished to close his ministry. He presided at the installation
of Lawson as his colleague and successor, and made an impressive ad-
dress and prayer. As he left the church a crowd of people lined the
street and followed him to his house to take farewell of their pastor.
He found his last comfort in the sacerdotal prayer, the fifty-third
chapter of Isaiah, and some psalms/ hearing' what was read, and c under-
standing far better.' He died, weary of life and longing for heaven, in
the sixty-seventh year of his age, in peace, without a struggle, lamented
by the clergy, the nobles, and the people (Nov. 24, 1572). He could
conscientiously say on his death-bed, before God and his holy angels,
that he never made merchandise of religion, never studied to please
or government] of Women,7 1558, which was aimed at the misgovernment of Mary Tudor
and Mary of Guise. This singular and characteristic but unfortunate book begins with the
sentence, ' To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire, above any
realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature, contumely to God, a thing most contrarious to
his revealed will and approved ordinance, and, finally, it is a subversion of all equity and jus-
tice/ He appealed to the creation, to the Jews, to St. Paul, to ancient philosophers and
legislators, to the fathers, to the Salic and French law. His error was that from some
bad examples he drew sweeping conclusions, which were soon confirmed by Mary Stuart,
but disproved by Elizabeth (as they are in our day by the reign of Victoria). No wonder
that Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth were incensed at what they regarded a personal insult.
Knox himself foresaw the bad consequences, and expected to be called ' a sower of sedition,
and one day perchance to be attainted for treason,' but he was too manly to retract, and re-
tained his opinion to the last, but, not wishing to obstruct the path of Elizabeth, he never
published the intended Second and Third Blast. See M'Crie's J. Knox, pp. 141-147 (Phila-
delphia ed.), and Carlyle, 1. c. pp. 230 sqq.
1 Knox wrote four Books of his History of the Reformation, down to 1564, at the request
of his friends. The Fifth Book is not found in any MS. copy, and was first published by
David Buchanan in 1 644 ; it relates the affairs of the most controverted period in Scottish
history, from Sept., 1564, to Aug., 1567, when Queen Mary abdicated. Laing thinks that it
is mostly derived from Knox's papers by some unknown hand (Works, Vol. II. p. 468).
Carlyle regrets that this ' hasty and strangely interesting, impressive, and peculiar History
has not been rendered far more extensively legible to serious mankind at large.' Laing has
added a vocabulary.
THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
men, never indulged his private passions, but faithfully used his talents
for the edification of the Church over which he was called to watch.
He was buried in the graveyard of St. Giles's ; no monument was
erected; a plain stone with his name marks the spot.
Enox was the greatest of Scotchmen, as Luther the greatest of Ger-
mans. He was the incarnation of all the noble and rugged energies
of his nation and age, and devoted them to the single aim of a thorough,
reformation in doctrine, worship,, and discipline, on the basis of the
Word of God.1 In genius, learning, wealth of ideas, and extent of
influence, he was inferior to Luther and Calvin, but in boldness,
strength, and purity of character, fully their equal.2 He was the most
heroic man of a heroic race. His fear of God made him fearless
of man. Endowed with a vigorous and original intellect, he was
eminently a man of action, with the pulpit for his throne and the
1 Thomas Carlyle, himself a typical Scotchman, calls Knox ' the most Scottish of Scots,
and to this day typical of all the qualities which belong nationally to the very choicest Scots-
men we have known, or had clear record of: utmost sharpness of discernment and discrimi-
nation, courage enough, and, what is still better, no particular consciousness of courage, but
a readiness in all simplicity to do and dare whatsoever is commanded by the inward voice of
native manhood; on the whole, a beautiful and simple but complete incompatibility with
whatsoever is false in word or conduct ; inexorable contempt and detestation of what in
modem speech is called humbug, ... a most clear-cut, hardy, distinct, and effective man ;
fearing God, and without any other fear.' He severely characterizes the patriarchal, long-
bearded, but stolid picture of Knox in Beza's Icones (Geneva, 1580), and in Laing's edition,
and represents the 'Somerville portrait,' with a sharp, stern face, high forehead, pointed
beard, and large white collar, as the only probable likeness of the great Reformer.
3 M'Crie (p. 355) well compares him with the three leading Reformers : i Knox bore a
striking resemblance to Luther in personal intrepidity and in popular eloquence. He ap-
proached nearest to Calvin in his religious sentiments, in the severity of his manners, and in
a certain impressive air of melancholy which pervaded his character. And he resembled
Zwinglius in his ardent attachment to the principles of civil liberty, and in combining his ex-
ertions for the reformation of the Church with uniform endeavors to improve the political
state of the people. Not that I would place our Reformer on a level with this illustrious tri-
umvirate. There is a splendor which surrounds the great German Reformer, partly arising
from the intrinsic heroism of his character, and partly reflected from the interesting situation
in which his long and doubtful struggle with the Court of Rome placed him in the eyes of
Europe, which removes him at a distance from all who started in the same glorious career.
The Genevese Reformer surpassed Knox in the extent of his theological learning, and in
the unrivaled solidity and clearness of his judgment. And the Reformer of Switzerland,
though inferior to him in masculine elocution and in daring courage, excelled him in self-
command, in prudence, and in that species of eloquence which steals into the heart, convinces
without irritating, and governs without assuming the tone of authority. But although "he
attained not to the first three," I know not, among all the eminent men who appeared at that
period, any name which is so well entitled to be placed next to theirs as that of Knox, whether
we consider the talents with which he was endowed, or the important services which he per-
formed/
§ 88. JOHN KNOX. 677
word for his sword. A statesman as well as a theologian, he possessed
rare political sagacity and intuitive knowledge of men. Next to Cal-
vin, he is the chief founder of the Presbyterian polity, which has
proved its vitality and efficiency for more than three centuries. Like
St. Paul and Calvin, he was small in person and feeble in body, but
irresistible in moral force.1 ' He put more life into his hearers from
the pulpit in an hour than six hundred trumpets/2 When old and
decrepit, leaning on his staff and the arm of his faithful servant, he
had to be lifted to the pulpit; but before the close he became so
animated and vigorous that he seemed ' likely to ding the pulpit in
blads [to beat it in pieces] and flie out of it.33 Well did the Earl of
Morton, the newly elected regent, characterize him over his open grave
in that sentence which has since been accepted as the best motto of his
life: 'Here lies he who never feared the face of man.34 And in a
different spirit, James VI. paid the same tribute to his fearless char-
acter, when with uplifted hands he thanked God that the three sur-
viving bairns of Knox were all lasses ; < for if they had been three lads/
he said to Mrs. Welch, ' I could never have bruiked [enjoyed] my three
kingdoms in peace.3 5
1 * Haud scio an unguam majus ingemwn. in fragili et imbedUo corpusculo collocarit.'
Principal Smeton, as quoted by M'Crie, p. 355.
s So the English embassador, Sir ISficholas Throckmorton, wrote to Cecil
3 Thus his eloquence was described, in 1571, by James Melville, then a student and con-
stant hearer of Knox. A lively Frenchman, in the Journal des Debats, gave the follow-
ing amusing version of this account : * A Presbyterian fanatic named Knox, . . . old and
broken down, . . . began his sermon in a feeble voice and slow action ; but soon heating
himself by the force of his passion and hatred, he bestirred himself like a madman ; he broke
his pulpit, and jumped into the midst of his hearers (sautoit ctu milieu des auditews).*
M'Crie, p. 325.
4 Or, in the less graceful but more expressive original phrase, as given by James Melville
(the only authority for it), * He neither feared nor flattered any flesh.*
5 Mrs. Welch was a daughter of Knox, and gained admission to the King, in London, 1622,
to ask his permission for the return of her sick husband (a worthy Presbyterian minister, who
had been exiled for his resistance to the re-establishment of episcopacy) to his native Scot-
land. James at last yielded on condition that she should persuade him to submit to the
bishops ; but the lady, lifting up her apron and holding it towards the King, replied, in the
genuine spirit of her father, * Please your Majesty, I'd rather kep [receive] his head there/
Mr. Welch died in London soon after this singular conversation ; his widow returned to Ayr,
and survived him three years, *a spouse and daughter worthy of such a husband and such a
father.' M'Crie, p. 362. Knox was twice married and had two sons by his first wife, Mar-
jory Bowes, of London, and three daughters by his second wife, Margaret Stewart, of a high
noble family in Scotland. The sons were educated at Cambridge, bat died young, without
678 THE CREEDS Otf CHRISTENDOM.
Knox had the stern and uncompromising spirit of a Hebrew prophet.
He confronted Queen Mary as Elijah confronted Jezebel, unmoved by
her beauty, her smiles, or her tears. He himself relates the four or
five interviews he had with that graceful, accomplished, fascinating,
but ill-fated lady, whose charms and misfortunes still excite fresh
feelings of sympathy in every human heart. It is difficult to imagine
a more striking contrast : Knox the right man in the right place, Mary
the wrong woman in the wrong place ; he intensely Scotch in character
and aim, she thoroughly French by education and taste; he in the
vigor of manhood, she in the bloom of youth and beauty ; he terribly
in earnest, she gay and frivolous ; he a believer in God's sovereignty
and the people's right and duty to disobey and depose treacherous
princes, she a believer in her own absolute right to rule and the sub-
ject's duty of passive obedience ; he abhorring her religion as idolatry
and her policy as ruin to Scotland, she fearing him as a rude fanatic,
an impertinent rebel and sorcerer in league with Beelzebub.1 We
must not judge from his conversations with the Queen that he was a
woman-hater : he respected right women in their proper sphere, as he
was respected by them, and his correspondence reveals a vain of ten-
derness and kindly genial humor beneath his severity.2 But in this
case he sacrificed all personal considerations to what he believed to be
his paramount duty to God and his Church.
1 Carlyle thus speaks of this remarkable chapter in the Scotch Reformation : * The inter-
views of Knox with the Queen are what one would most like to produce to readers ; but un-
fortunately they are of a tone which, explain as we might, not one reader in a thousand could
be made to sympathize with or do justice to in behalf of Knox. The treatment which that
young, beautiful, and high chief personage in Scotland receives from the rigorous Knox,
would to most modern men seem irreverent, cruel, almost barbarous. Here more than else-
where Knox proves himself, — here more than any where bound to do it, — the Hebrew Prophet
in complete perfection ; refuses to soften any expression or to call any thing by its milder
name, or in short for one moment to forget that the Eternal God and His Word are great,
and that all else is little, or is nothing ; nay, if it set itself against the Most High and His
Word, is the one frightful thing that this world exhibits. He is never in the least ill-tem-
pered with her Majesty ; but she can not move him from that fixed centre of all his thoughts
and actions : Do the will of God, and tremble at nothing; do against the will of God, and
know that, in the Immensity and the Eternity around you, there is nothing but matter of
terror. Nothing can move Knox here or elsewhere from that standing-ground ; no consider-
ation of Queen's sceptres and armies and authorities of men is of any efficacy or dignity
whatever in comparison ; and becomes not beautiful, but horrible, when it sots itself against
the Most High.'
9 See his letters of comfort to Mrs. Bowes, his mother-in-law, who suffered much from re-
ligious melancholy, in Works by Laing, Vol. III. pp. 337-343, and Vol, VI. p, 513 ; also in
Lorimer, pp. 39 sqq.
§ 88. JOHN KNOX. 679
The pulpit proved mightier than the throne. The suicidal blunders
of the Queen, who had more trouble from her three husbands — two of
them handsome but heartless and worthless ruffians and murderers —
than her grand-uncle Henry VIII. had from his six wives, are the best
vindication of the national policy, if not the personal conduct, of the Re-
former. Had Mary's popish policy triumphed, there would have been
an end to Protestantism and liberty in Scotland, and probably in En-
gland too ; while Knox, fighting intolerance with intolerance, laid the
solid foundation for future liberty. He felt at that turning-point of
history that, what is comparatively harmless now, 6 one mass was more
dangerous to Scotland than an army of ten thousand enemies.3 1
If Knox lacked the sweet and lovely traits of Christian character, it
should be remembered that God wisely distributes his gifts. Neither
the polished culture of Erasmus, nor the gentle spirit of Melanchthon,
nor the cautious measures of Cranmer could have accomplished the
mighty change in Scotland. Koiox was, beyond a doubt, the providential
man for his country. Scotland alone could produce a Knox, and Knox
alone could reform Scotland. If any man ever lived to some purpose,
and left the indelible impress of his character upon posterity, it was
John Knox. His is to this day the best known and the most popular
name in Scotland. Such fearless and faithful heroes are among the
best gifts of God to the world.
We need not wonder that Knox, like the other Reformers, was pur-
sued by malignant calumny during his life, and even charged with un-
natural crimes, which would make him ridiculous as well as hideous.
But those who knew him best esteemed him most. Bannatyne, his
faithful clerk, calls him, in his journal, ' the light of Scotland, the com-
fort of the Church, the mirror of godliness, the pattern of all true
ministers in purity of life, soundness of doctrine, and boldness in re-
proving wickedness.5 James Melville, who heard his last sermons,
speaks of him as 'that most notable prophet and apostle ? of Scotland.2
1 Fronde says : * Toleration is a good thing in its place ; but you can not tolerate what
will not tolerate you, and is trying to cut your throat. . . . The Covenanters fought the fight
and won the victory, and then, and not till then, came the David Humes with their essays on
miracles, and the Adam Smiths with their political economies, and steam-engines, and rail-
•roads, and philosophical institutions, and all the other blessed or unblessed fruits of liberty1
Jl c. pp. 148, 149).
1 Beza also calls him * Scotorum apostolum, '
VOL. I.— X r
$50 TfiE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Posterity has judged differently, according to the religions stand-point.
To some he still appears as a semi-barbarous fanatic, a dangerous
heretic, or at best as a 'holy savage;' while Froude regards him as
' the grandest figure in the entire history of the British Reformation,5
and Oarlyle as c more than a man of genius — a heaven-inspired prophet
and heroic leader of men.5
§ 89. THE SCOTCH CONFESSION OP FAITH. A.D. 1560.
Literature.
The Scotch Confession in the original Scotch dialect, together with the authorized Latin version of
Patrick Adamson (1572), is printed in Vol. HL pp. 42T-4TO, from Dnnlop's Collection, Vol. II. pp. 13 sqq. It
appeared at Edinburgh, 1561 (Eohert Lekprevik), without the marginal Scripture references, in the
Minutes of Parliament, in Knox's History of the Reformation (Vol. II. pp. 98 sqq. ; Laing's ed.), in Cal-
derwood's History of the Kirk of Scotland (Vol. II. pp. 16 sqq. ; Thomson's ed. for the Wodrow Soc.), in
Edward Irving's reprint of the Cont and the Book of Discipline (1881), and (abridged) in Innes, Law of
Creeds (pp. 39 sqq.). In the Writings of John Knox, by the Presbyterian Board of Publication, Phila.,
1842, pp. 237 sqq., it is given in modern English.
A Latin version (teas correct and elegant than that of Adamson) appeared in the Corpus et Syntagma
Conf.i 1612 and 1664, and is reproduced in Niemeyer's ColUctw, pp. 340 sqq. Niemeyer's critical notice in
the Proleg., p. 1L, is very brief and meagre. For a German translation, see Bockel, pp. 645 sqq.
The supplementary Scotch Confession of 1580 is printed in Vol. III. pp. 4TO-4T5.
OEIGIN OF THE SCOTCH CONFESSION.
* The Creed of Scotland and the Church of Scotland emerge into
history so nearly at the same moment that it is difficult to say which
has the precedence even in order of time. It is at least equally diffi-
cult to say which is first in respect of authority ; and, indeed, the ques-
tion whether the Church is founded upon the creed or the creed upon
the Church appears to be at the root of most of the legal difficulties
that lie before us.' *
The Reformed Church of Scotland was not legally recognized and
established by Parliament till 1567, seven years after the Scotch Con-
fession was adopted and the first General Assembly was held; but
it existed in fact, under royal protest, as a voluntary body from De-
cember 3, 1557, when a number of Protestant nobles and gentlemen
signed, at Edinburgh, a ' Covenant5 to maintain, nourish, and defend
to the death * the whole Congregation of Christ, and every member
thereof.5 This was one of those religious bonds or mutual agree-
ments by which the confederation of Protestants of Scotland was so
often ratified to secure common privileges. The term Congregation
(cKicAijo-fa, ecclesia), which afterwards was exchanged for Kirk
1 Innes, The Law of Creeds in Scotland, p. 4.
§ 89. THE SCOTCH CONCESSION OF FAITH, 1560. 681
), then signified the true Church of Christ in opposition to the apo&
tate Papal Church, and the leaders were called the * Lords of the Con-
gregation.' For a few years the Liturgy of Edward VL and the
'Order of Geneva5 seem to have been used, but there is no record of
any formal approval of a doctrinal standard before 1560.1
On the first of August, 1560, after the death of the Queen Eegent,
Mary of Guise, and the expulsion of the French troops, but before the
arrival of Queen Mary, the Scotch Parliament convened at Edinburgh
to settle the new state of things in this transition period. It proved to
be the most important meeting in the history of that kingdom. The
Church question came up on a petition to abolish popery, to restore the
purity of worship and discipline, and to devote the ecclesiastical reve-
nues to the support of a pious clergy, the promotion of learning, and
the relief of the poor. In answer to the first request, the Parliament
directed the Protestant ministers to draw up a Confession of Faith.
This was done hastily, though not without mature preparation, in four
days, by John Knox and his compeers.2 The document was read twice,
article by article, and ratified by the three estates, August 17, 1560,
'as a doctrine grounded upon the infallible Word of God.' Every
member was requested to vote. The papal bishops were charged to
object and refute, but they kept silence. The temporal lords all voted
for the Confession except three, the Earl of Athole, Lord Somerville,
and Lord Borthwick, who declared as their only reason of dissent/ We
will beleve as our fathers belevet.' f
Randolph, the English envoy, wrote to Cecil two days afterwards : * I
1 ' The Confession of Faith of the English Congregation at Geneva,' 1558, consists only of
four articles: 1, of God the Father; 2, of Jesus Christ; 3, of the Holy Ghost; 4, of the
Church and the Communion of Saints. It was probably drawn up by Knox. Chaps. 1 and 4
have some resemblance to the corresponding articles of the Scotch Confession. It is re-
printed in Dunlop's Collection, Vol. II. pp. 3-12. The editor says that it was * received and
approved by the Church of Scotland in the beginning of the Reformation.*
a Knox reports (VoL II. p. 128) : " Commission and charge was given to Mr. John Win-
ram, sub-prior of St. Andrew's, Mr. John Spottiswoode, John Hillock, Mr. John Douglas,
rector of St. Andrew's, Mr. John Howe, and John Knox, to draw in a volume the policy and
discipline of the Kirk, as well as they had done the doctrine.* Thus six Johns composed both
the Confession of Faith and the Book of Discipline, which breathe the spirit of the Church
militant, and are Pauline rather than Johannean. Knox was no doubt the chief author of
both. He had experience in the preparation of such documents, as he was consulted about
the Edwardine Articles of Religion, prepared the Confession for the English congregations
in Geneva, and must have been familiar with the Swiss Confession*.
3 Knox, Hist. Vol. II. p. 121 ; Calderwood,Vol. II. p. 37.
882 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
never heard matters of so great importance neither sooner dispatched,
nor with better will agreed unto. . . . The rest of the Lords, with com-
mon consent and as glad a will as ever I heard men speak, allowed the
same. . . . Many offered to shed their blood in defense of the same.
The old Lord Lindsay, as grave and godly a man as ever I saw, said,
" I have lived many years ; I am the oldest in this company of my sort ;
now that it hath pleased God to let me see this day, where so many
nobles and others have allowed so worthy a work, I will say with
Simeon, Nunc dimittis" ' l
The adoption of the Confession was followed (Aug. 24:, 1560) by
acts abolishing the mass, the jurisdiction of the pope, and rescinding
all the laws formerly made in support of the Bornan Catholic Church
and against the Reformed religion. A messenger was dispatched
with the Confession to Queen Mary, in Paris, to secure her ratifica-
tion, but was not graciously received. Her heart's design was to re-
store in due time her own religion.
In December of the same year the first General Assembly convened,
and approved the Book of Discipline, prepared by the same authors.
It was submitted to the state authority, but this refused to ratify it.2
Seven years afterwards (1567), the Parliament formally established
the Reformed Church, by declaring the ministers of the blessed Evan-
gel and the people of the realm professing Christ according to the
Confession of Faith ' to be the only true and holy Kirk of Jesus
Christ within this realm.' Subscription was required from all minis-
ters first in 1572.3 From that time till the Eevolution of 1688 this
native Confession was the only legally recognized doctrinal standard
of both the Presbyterian and Episcopal Churches in Scotland. The
Covenanters, however, during the Commonwealth, adopted the West-
minster standards, which have thrown the older Confession into the
shade. Besides, the General Assembly approved and recommended
also the Second Helvetic Confession, which Beza transmitted to
Scotland (1566), Calvin's Catechism, and the Heidelberg Catechism,
but no subscription to these foreign confessions was ever exacted.
1 Knox, Works, Vol. VI. pp. 116-118: Innes, p. 1 1 .
* See * The Booke of the Universall Kirk of Scotland,' containing the earliest records of
fce Minutes of the Assembly, published in one volume, 1839; Calderwood, Yol. IT. pp. 44
Hq. ; Innes, pp. 21 sqq.
3 Innes, pp. 30 and 49.
§ 89. THE SCOTCH CONCESSION OF FAITH, 1560. 683
CONTENTS.
The Scotch Confession consists of twenty-five Articles, and a short
Pref ace, which breathes the spirit of true confessors ready for martyr-
dom. It begins : ' Long have we thirsted, dear brethren, to have noti-
fied unto the world the sum of that doctrine which we profess, and for
the which we have sustained infamy and danger;' and it ends with
the words : < We firmly purpose to abide to the end in the confession of
this our faith.' But the authors are far from claiming infallibility for
their own statements of the truth, and subject them to improvement
and correction from the Holy Scriptures.1 In harmony with this, the
20th Article denies the infallibility of general councils, c some of which
have manifestly erred, and that in matters of great weight and im-
portance.5
The Confession covers the oecumenical and evangelical doctrines, be-
ginning with God and ending with the Church, the Sacraments, and
the Civil Magistrate. It exhibits a clear, fresh, and forcible summary of
the orthodox Reformed faith, as then held in common by the Protest-
ants of England, Switzerland, France, and Holland. Though decidedly
Calvinistic, it is yet free from the scholastic technicalities and angular
statements of the Calvinism of a later generation. The doctrine of the
Sacraments is similar to and rather stronger than that of the Thirty-
nine Articles.2 The Church is declared to be uninterruptedly one
1 'We protest that if any one will note in this onr Confession any article or sentence re-
pugnant to God's Holy Word, that it would please him of his gentleness and for Christian
charity's sake, to admonish us of the same in writing ; and we, upon our honor and fidelity,
by God's grace, do promise unto him satisfaction from the mouth of God (that is, from his
Holy Scriptures), or else reformation of that which he shall prove to be amiss, ' Dean Stanley,
in quoting this passage from the Preface (Lectures, etc. p. 113), says that it is the only
Protestant Confession which, far in advance of its age, acknowledges its own fallibility.
But the First Confession of Basle (1534) does the same in express words in the closing arti-
cle (see Niemeyer, Collect, pp. 84 and 104); and the changes of the Augsburg Confession
(Art. X.), and of the English Articles, imply the recognition of their imperfection on the part
of the authors. The 19th Article, in declaring that all Churches have erred in matters of
faith, could certainly not intend to exempt the Church of England and her formularies.
3 Tytler (History of Scotland^ "ol. III. p. 129, ed. of 1872) observes : *It Is worthy of re-
mark that in these holy mysteries of our faith this Confession, drawn up by the primitive
Scotch [Reformers, keeps in some points at a greater distance from the rationalizing of ultra-
Protestantism than the Articles of Edward.' On Knox's view of the eucharist, see Lorimer,
1. c. pp. 129 and 131. He held the Calvinistic view before he came to Geneva, and while
still a disciple of Wishart, who learned it from his intercourse with the Swiss Churches in
0, and translated the First Helvetic Confession of 1536 into English.
384: THE CEEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
from the beginning to the end of the world, ' one company and multi-
tude of men chosen of God, who rightly worship and embrace him by
true faith in Christ Jesus, who is the only Head of the same Church,
which also is the body and spouse of Christ Jesus ; which Church is
catholic, that is, universal, because it containeth the elect of all ages>
all realms, nations, and tongues, \vho have communion with God the
Father, and with his Son, through the sanctification of the Holy Spirit'
But this Church is put in strong contrast with the false and apostate
Church of the Papacy, aud distinguished from it by three marks —
namely, the pure preaching of the gospel, the right administration of
the sacraments, and the exercise of ecclesiastical discipline. The first
two are mentioned in the Augsburg Confession and the English Arti-
cles ; the third is peculiarly Calviuistic and Presbyterian.
But no particular form of Church government or worship is laid
down in this Confession as binding, and freedom is allowed in cere-
monies.1 Knox himself prepared, after the Geneva model, a liturgy,
or Book of Common Order, which was indorsed by the General Assem-
bly (Dec. 26, 1564), and used in Scotland for a long time.2 The ex-
clusive theory of a jure divino Presbyterian ism dates not so much
from Knox as from Andrew Melville, and the aversion to forms of
prayer was a reaction against the attempt of Laud to force a foreign
episcopacy and liturgy upon the reluctant Scotch.
Edward Irving, himself one of the purest and noblest sons of Scot-
land, who for several years thrilled the English metropolis with his
pentecostal gift of tongues, and to whom Thomas Carlyle, the friend of
his youth, paid such a touching tribute, was in the habit of reading the
Scotch Confession twice in the year to his congregation, and bestowed
this encomium upon it:3 'This document is the pillar of the Refor-
1 Art. XX. : * In the Church, as in the house of God, it becometh all things to be done
decently and in order : not that we think that one policy, and one order of ceremonies can be
appointed for all ages, times, and places ; for as ceremonies, such as men have devised, are
but temporal, so may and ought they to be changed, when they rather foster superstition
than edify the Church using the same. '
3 It has been republished by the Rev. John Camming, London, 1840. Gumming says
(p. v.) : < The Scotch Church never objected to a written liturgy in her public worship, pro-
vided there was room left in the service for extemporaneous service. ' John Knox's Liturgy
was never formally abolished, but, like the Scotch Confession, it was silently superseded by
the Westminster standards.
. a Collected Writings of Edward Irving, London, 1 864, Vol. I. p. 601S quoted by Innes, p. 55.
§ 90. THE SCOTCH COVENANTS AND THE SCOTCH KIRK. 685
raation Church of Scotland, which hath derived little help from the
Westminster Confession of Faith : whereas these twenty-five articles,
ratified in the Parliament of Scotland in the year 1560, not only at
that time united the states of the kingdom in one firm band against
the Papacy, but also rallied the people at sundry times of trouble
and distress for a whole century thereafter, and it may be said even
until the Revolution, when the Church came into that haven of rest
which has proved far more pernicious to her than all the storms she
ever passed through ; for, though the Westminster Confession was
adopted as a platform of communion with the English Presbyterians in
the year 1647, it exerted little or no influence upon our Church, and was
hardly felt as an operative principle either of good or evil, until the
Eevolution of 1688 ; so that the Scottish Confession was the banner
of the Church in all her wrestlings and conflicts, the Westminster Con-
fession but as the camp colors which she hath used during her days of
peace — the one for battle, the other for fair appearance and good
order. This document consisteth of twenty-five articles, and is written
in a most honest, straightforward, manly style, without compliment or
flattery, without affectation of logical precision and learned accuracy,
as if it came fresh from the heart of laborious workmen, all the day
long busy with the preaching of the truth, and sitting down at night to
embody the heads of what was continually taught. There is a fresh-
ness of life about it which no frequency of reading wears off.3
§ 90. THE SCOTCH COVENANTS AND THE SCOTCH EJBK.
Literature.
The Covenants are added to some Scotch editions of the Westminster Standards. The Solemn
League and Covenant was often separately printed
JAMES AXKMAN : An Historical Account of Covenanting in Scotland, from the First Band in Mearns,
1556, to the Signature of the Grand National Covenant, 1638. Edinburgh, 1848 (82 pp.).
National Covenants or politico-religious agreements for the mainte-
nance and defense of certain principles and privileges are a peculiar
and prominent feature in the history of the Kirk of Scotland. They
were copied from Jewish precedents.1 They originated in critical
1 Josh. XXIY. 25 : t So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and set them a
statute and an ordinance at Shechem;' 2 Kings xi. 17: * And Jehoiada made a covenant
between the Lord and the king and the people, that they should be the Lord's people •./ also
Isa. xliv. 5.
686 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
periods, when the sacred rights and convictions of the people were in
imminent danger, and when the religious and national sentiments were
inseparably blended. They are not properly confessions of faith, but
closely connected with them, and must therefore be noticed here.
They are solemn pledges to defend the doctrines and polity of the Ke-
f ormed Kirk against all hostile attempts from within or from without,
and to die rather than surrender.1
The earlier Covenants were safeguards against popery, the later
against episcopacy. In the ecclesiastical history of Scotland since the
Reformation we may distinguish three main periods: the period of
anti-popery (1560 to 1590), the period of anti-prelacy (until 1690), and
the period of anti-patronage (until 1875).
The first Covenants were made for mutual protection against the
Eomanists by a number of Protestant nobles and gentlemen, at Mearns,
1556, at Edinburgh, Dec. 3, 1557, at Perth, Dec. 31, 1559, before the
Reformed Kirk was properly organized.
THE NATIONAL COVENANT, 1581 AND 1638.
Par more important is the 'National Covenant,' or the ' Second
Scotch Confession,' also called the ' King's Confession,' and the Nega-
tive Confession.' It was drawn up in English and Latin by the Rev.
John Craig, a noble, well-educated, and devoted man, a colleague of
1 Dr. M'Crie says of the Scotch Covenants (p. 120): * Although they have been con-
demned as unwarranted in a religious point of view, and dangerous in a political, yet are they
completely defensible upon the principles both of conscience and policy. A mutual agree-
ment, compact, or covenant, is virtually implied in the constitution of every society, civil or
religious ; and the dictates of natural law conspire with the declarations of revelation in
sanctioning the warrantableness and propriety of explicit engagements, about any lawful and
important matter, and of ratifying these, if circumstances shall require it, by formal subscrip-
tion, and by a solemn appeal to the searcher of hearts. By strengthening the motives to
fidelity and constancy, and thus producing mutual confidence among those who are embarked
in the same cause, they have proved eminently beneficial in the reformation of churches and
nations, and in securing the religious and political privileges of men. The misapplication of
them, when employed in a bad cause and for mischievous ends, can be no argument against
their use in a legitimate way, and for laudable purposes. And the reasoning employed to
prove that such covenants should not be entered into without the permission of rulers would
lead to the conclusion that subjects ought never to profess a religion to which their superiors
are hostile, nor make any attempts to obtain the reform of abuses, or the redress of griev-
ances, without the consent and approbation of those who are interested in their support.'
Prom Scotland the custom of covenanting passed to the Puritans in England and New En-
gland, and remains to-day in the shape of solemn engagements assumed by individual Chris-
tians when they enter into full communion with a church. Such covenants take the place
of confirmation vows customary in the Lutheran and Anglican Churches.
§ 90. THE SCOTCH COVENANTS AND THE SCOTCH KIRK. 687
Knox and author of two Catechisms, who, after an eventful and ro-
mantic career, died in 1600, in the eighty-eight year of his life. It is
a solemn indorsement of the Confession of Faith of 1560, with the
strongest possible protest against c all kind of papistry in general and
particular heads,' especially against the 'usurped tyranny of the Bo-
man Antichrist upon the Scriptures of God, upon the Kirk, the civil
magistrate, and consciences of men ; all his tyrannous laws made upon
indifferent things, against our Christian liberty ; ... his five bastard
sacraments, with all his rites, ceremonies, and false doctrine added to
the ministration of the true sacraments without the Word of G-od ; his
cruel judgment against infants departing without the sacrament;1
his absolute necessity of baptism ; his blasphemous opinion of transub-
stantiation; his devilish mass; his blasphemous priesthood; his pro-
fane sacrifice for sins of the dead and the quick; ... his worldly
monarchy and wicked hierarchy ; his three solemn TOWS ; his erroneous
and bloody decrees made at Trent, with all the subscribers and ap-
provers of that cruel and bloody band conjured against the Kirk of
God.5 No other Protestant Confession is so fiercely anti-popish.
This Covenant was subscribed by King James VI., his household, and
a number of nobles and ministers, at Edinburgh, Jan. 28, 1581 (or 1580,
old style2) ; then by the Assembly and by persons of all ranks in March,
1581 ; again in 1590, together with a £ General Band for Maintenance of
the True Religion and the King's Person or Estate ;' it was solemnly re-
newed, with additions, in 1638 and 1639; ratified by an Act of Parlia-
ment in 1640, and signed by King Charles II., in exile, at Spey, June 23,
1650, and again when he was crowned at Scone, in Scotland, Jan. 1, 1651.3
The renewal of the Covenant in 1638, which is more particularly
called the National Covenant, marks the Second Reformation. It in-
cludes the old Covenant of 1581, the Acts of Parliament condemning
popery, and a protest against the government of the Bark by bishops,
and all those measures of King Charles I. which * do sensibly tend to
1 This is the first confessional declaration, against the damnation, and, by implication, in
favor of the salvation, of unbaptized infants ; and agrees with the private opinion previously
expressed by Zwingli and Bullinger.
3 ' They did not begin the year in Scotland, at that time, till the 25th of March.* — Dun-
lop's Collection, Vol. II. p. 101.
3 See the text in Vol. III. p. 480 ; and in Calderwood, Vol. HI. p. 502. Calderwood
thinks (p. 505) that this confession, under the name of 'wicked hierarchy,7 condemns epis-
copal government 5 but it is evident from the context that the papal hierarchy is meant.
gg8 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
the re-establishment of the Popish religion and tyranny, and to the sub-
version and ruin of the true Reformed religion, and of our liberties,
laws, and estates.3 The additions were prepared by Alexander Hen-
derson and Johnston of Warriston, to meet a great crisis.1
The introduction of the semi-presbyterian mongrel episcopacy of
James was comparatively harmless. But when his son Charles and his
spiritual adviser, Archbishop Laud, in criminal ignorance or contempt
of public feeling, attempted to force upon the Scots the royal su-
premacy, with a Romanizing hierarchy and liturgy, it produced a revo-
lution and civil war which extended to England, and culminated in the
temporary triumph of Puritanism. Macaulay traces the freedom of
England to this 'act of insane bigotry.' In 1633 Laud displayed the
most elaborate pomp of ceremonial worship in Holyrood Chapel to
impress the descendants of John Knox ! His new service-book differ-
ed from the English in a marked tendency to popery. When it was
first introduced, July 23, 1637, in the cathedral church of St. Giles, in
the presence of the privy council, the two archbishops of Scotland,
several bishops, and the city magistrates, a poor old woman, named
Jenny Geddes, confounding * colic' and * collect,5 indignantly exclaimedj
< Villain, dost thou say mass at my lug,3 and hurled her famous stool at
the head of the unfortunate dean, who read cthe black, popish, and
superstitious book.' Instantly all was uproar and confusion all over
the city. The people shouted through the streets, ' A pope, a pope !
Antichrist 1 The sword of the Lord and Gideon ! ' The unpremeditated
riot extended into a popular revolution. The result was the overthrow
of the artificial scheme which bigotry and tyranny had concocted.2
The renewal of the Covenant took place in Greyfriars' Church, in
Edinburgh, the 28th of February, 1638, and was a most solemn and ex-
traordinary scene. No less than sixty thousand people flocked to the
city from all parts of the kingdom. The dense crowd which filled the
church and adjoining graveyard listened with breathless attention to
1 See the additions in Dunlop's Collection, Vol. II. pp. 125-137, also the Acts of the Assem-
blies of Glasgow, 1638, and Edinburgh, 1639, pp. 114 sqq.
2 ' Never,' says Dean Stanley (p. 82), ' except in the days of the Trench Eeyolution, did a
popular tumult lead to such important results. The stool which was on that occasion flung
at the head of the Dean of Edinburgh extinguished the English Liturgy entirely in Scotland
for the seventeenth century, to a great extent even till the nineteenth, and gave to the civil
war of England an impulse which only ended in the overthrow of .the Church and monarchy.7
§ 90. THE SCOTCH COVENANTS AND THE SCOTCH KIKK. 689
the prayers, the addresses, and the reading of the Covenant. The aged
Earl of Sutherland first signed his name with trembling hand upon
the parchment roll. Name followed name in swift succession. c Some
wept aloud ; some burst into a shout of exultation ; some, after their
names, added the words, till death • and some, opening a vein, sub-
scribed with their own warm blood. As the space became filled, they
wrote their names in a contracted form, limiting them at last to the
initial letters, till not a spot remained on which another letter could be
inscribed. . . . Never, except among God's peculiar people, the Jews,
did any national transaction equal in moral and religious sublimity
that which was displayed by Scotland on the great day of her sacred
National Covenant.31
Similar scenes were repeated throughout the Northern Kingdom.
Noblemen and gentlemen carried copies of the Covenant in their
pockets and portmanteaus, soliciting subscriptions. Women sat in
church day and night, from Friday till Sunday, to receive the com-
munion with it. To refuse signature seemed to some denial of Chris-
tianity itself.2
THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AUTO COVENANT, 1643.
* THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT for Reformation and Defense
of Religion, the Honor and Happiness of the King, and the Peace and
Safety of the Three Kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland,5 is
the last and the most important of these national compacts which grew
out of the Reformation. It has neither the doctrinal import nor the
ring and fervor of the National Covenant of 1580 and 1638, but it had
a wider scope and greater effect. It is anti-episcopal as well as anti-
papal. It is the connecting link between Scotch Presbyterianism and
English Puritanism, between the General Assembly and the Westmin-
ster Assembly, between the Scotch Parliament and the Long Parlia-
ment. It aimed to secure uniformity of religion in the united realms,
while the National Covenant, like the Confession of 1560, was purely
Scotch, and never exceeded its original boundary.3
1 Hetherington, History of the Church of Scotland, p. 91 (3d ed.).
* For fuller particulars, see Baillie's Letters, Vol.1., Rothes's Relation, Alton's Life of
Henderson, Burton (Vol. VI. p. 442). Accounts from the episcopal side, in Thomas Ste-
phen's History of the Church of Scotland, Vol. I. pp. 552 sqq. ; Stanley, 1. c. pp. 80 sqq.
3 It is surprising that these two Covenants should he confounded hy such a scholar as
690 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
"We present first the text in full : l
'We Noblemen, Barons, Knights, Gentlemen, Citizens, Burgesses, Ministers of the Gospel,
and Commons of all sorts, in the kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland, by the provi-
dence of God, living under one King, and being of one reformed religion, having before our
eyes the glory of God and the advancement of the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ, the honor and happiness of the King's Majesty and his posterity, and the true public
liberty, safety, and peace of the kingdoms, wherein every one's private condition is included :
And calling to mind the treacherous and bloody plots, conspiracies, attempts, and practices
of the enemies of God, against the true religion and professors thereof in all places, especially
in these three kingdoms, ever since the reformation of religion ; and how much their rage,
power, and presumption are of late and at this time increased and exercised, whereof the de-
plorable state of the Church and kingdom of Ireland, the distressed estate of the Cjiurch and
kingdom of England, and the dangerous estate of the Church and kingdom of Scotland are
present and public testimonies ; we have now at last (after other means of supplication, re-
monstrance, protestation, and sufferings, for the preservation of ourselves and our religion
from utter ruin and destruction, according to the commendable practice of these kingdoms
in former times, and the example of God's people in other nations), after mature delibera-
tion, resolved and determined to enter into a mutual and Solemn League and Covenant,
wherein we all subscribe, and each one of us for himself, with our hands lifted up to the most
High God, do swear,
* I. That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of God, endeavor, in
our several places and callings, the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of
Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against our common enemies ; the
reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, dis-
cipline, and government, according to the Word of God and the example of the best Re-
formed Churches ; and shall endeavor to bring the Churches of God in the three kingdoms
to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, confession of faith, form of Church gov-
ernment, directory for worship and catechising; that we, and our posterity after us, may, as
brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us.
* II. That we shall, in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavor the extirpation of
Popery, Prelacy (that is, Church government by Archbishops, Bishops, their Chancellors and
Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical Officers
depending on that hierarchy), superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever shall
be found to be contrary to sound doctiine and the power of godliness ; lest we partake in
other men's sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues ; and that the Lord
may be one, and his name one, in the three kingdoms.
4 III. We shall, with the same sincerity, reality, and constancy, in our several vocations,
endeavor, with our estates and lives, mutually to preserve the rights and privileges of the
Parliaments, and the liberties of the kingdoms ; and to preserve and defend the King's Maj-
esty's person and authority, in the preservation and defense of the true religion and liberties
of the kingdoms: that the world may bear witness with onr consciences of our loyalty, and
that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminish his Majesty's just power and greatness.
'IV. We shall also, with all faithfulness, endeavor the discovery of all such as have been
or shall be incendiaries, malignants, or evil instruments, by hindering the reformation of re-
Dean Stanley, in his eloquent description of it, in Lectures on the Church of Scotland, pp.
83-86 (Am. ed.). Dean Hook makes the same mistake — Life of Laud, p. 267.
1 From * The [Westminster] Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, to-
gether with the Sum of Saving Knowledge, Covenants, National, and Solemn League,' etc.
Edinburgh, 1788, pp. 501 sqq. Masson, in his Life of Milton, Vol. III. p. 13, gives the
essential parts of the National Covenant. Fuller inserts it in full, Vol. VI. p. 255, and
compares it (p. 259) to * the superstitious and cruel Six Articles enacted by King Henry VIIL'
Comp. Baillie's Letters, Vol. II. pp. 81-90; the Acts of the General Assembly for 1643;
Stoughton, The Church of the Civil Wars, pp. 293 and 320 ; Masson, 1. c.Vol. HI. pp. 6-15;
Hetherington, 1. c. pp. 110 saa.
§ 90. THE SCOTCH COVENANTS AND THE SCOTCH KIEK. 691
ligion, dividing the King from his people, or one of the kingdoms from another, or making
any faction or parties amongst the people, contrary to this League and Covenant ; that they
may be brought to public trial, and receive condign punishment, as the degree of their of-
fenses shall require or deserve, or the supreme judicatories of both kingdoms respectively, or
others having power from them for that effect, shall judge convenient.
4 V. And whereas the happiness of a blessed peace between these kingdoms, denied in
former times to our progenitors, is, by the good providence of God, granted unto us, and hath
been lately concluded and settled by both Parliaments ; we shall each one of us, according to
our place and interest, endeavor that they may remain conjoined in a firm peace and union
to all posterity, and that justice may be done upon the willful opposers thereof, in manner
expressed in the precedent article.
' VI. We shall also, according to our places and callings, in this common cause of religion,
liberty, and peace of the kingdoms, assist and defend all those that enter into this League
and Covenant in the maintaining and pursuing thereof; and shall not suifer ourselves, directly
or indirectly, by whatsoever combination, persuasion, or terror, to be divided and withdrawn
from this blessed union and conjunction, whether to make defection to the contrary part, or
to give ourselves to a detestable indifferency or neutrality in this cause which so much con-
cerneth the glory of God, the good of the kingdom, and honor of the king ; but shall, all the
days of our lives, zealously and constantly continue therein against all opposition, and pro-
mote the same according to our power against all lets and impediments whatsoever ; and
what we are not able ourselves to suppress or overcome we shall reveal and make known,
that it may be timely prevented or removed : all which we shall do as in the sight of God.
1 And, because these kingdoms are guilty of many sins and provocations against God and
his Son Jesus Christ, as is too manifest by our present distresses and dangers, the fruits
thereof, we profess and declare, before God and the world, our unfeigned desire to be hum-
bled for our own sins, and for the sins of these kingdoms ; especially, that we have not as we
ought valued the inestimable benefit of the gospel ; that we have not labored for the purity and
power thereof; and that we have not endeavored to receive Christ in our hearts, nor to walk
worthy of him in our lives ; which are the causes of other sins and transgressions so much
abounding amongst us ; and our true and unfeigned purpose, desire, and endeavor for our-
selves, and all others under our power and charge, both in public and in private, in all duties
we owe to God and man, to amend our lives, and each one to go before another in the ex-
ample of a real reformation ; that the Lord may turn away his wrath and heavy indignation,
and establish these Churches and kingdoms in truth and peace.
* And this Covenant we make in the presence of Almighty God, the searcher of all hearts,
with a true intention to perform, the same, as we shall answer at that great day when the
secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed ; most humbly beseeching the Lord to strengthen us by
his Holy Spirit for this end, and to bless our desires and proceedings with such success as
may be deliverance and safety to his people and encouragement to other Christian Churches,
groaning under, or in danger of, the yoke of anti-Christian tyranny, to join in the same or
like association and covenant, to the glory of God, the enlargement of the kingdom of Jesus
Christ, and the peace and tranquillity of Christian kingdoms and commonwealths.'
The immediate origin of this international politico-religious Covenant
was the combined application of the English Parliament, then at war
with King Charles L, and the Westminster Assembly of Divines, then
sitting under its authority, for the effectual aid of the Scots, who occu-
pied a position of neutrality. Six commissioners — four from the Par-
liament (Sir William Araiyn, Sir Harry Yane the younger, Mr. Hatcher,
and Mr. Barley) and two from the Westminster Assembly (Stephen
692 'THE CREEDS OF CHRISTESGDOM.
Marshall and Philip Nye) — appeared with official and private letters
before the Scotch Convention of Estates and the General Assembly at
Edinburgh, in August, 1643. The English desired a civil league ; the
Scotch were for a religious covenant, and made the latter a condition
of the former. Alexander Henderson, a highly esteemed minister at
Edinburgh, Rector of the University (since 1640), and then for the third
time Moderator of the General Assembly, was intrusted with the
preparation of the document. He had drawn up a part of the Na-
tional Covenant five years before. The English suggested some modi-
fications which gave greater prominence to the political feature. The
draft was unanimously and enthusiastically adopted by the General
Assembly and the Scottish Convention, Aug. 17, 1643. The people,
who had not forgotten the Covenant of 1638, manifested their most
hearty approval, and went into the new engagement with the 'perfer-
vidum ingenium Scotorum.'
The Solemn League and Covenant became a signal of war and vic-
tory in the history of Puritanism. It was followed by the appointment
of Scotch commissioners to the Westminster Assembly, who took a
leading part in the preparation of the "Westminster standards of doc-
trine, worship, and discipline. It was debated for three or four days
in that Assembly, and approved, with a few verbal alterations, by all
the members except the Episcopalians. On the 21st of September
Parliament ordered it to be published and subscribed throughout En-
gland. On the 25th of September the members of the House of Com-
mons (two hundred and twenty-eight) and the divines of the Assembly
set the example in St. Margaret's Church,1 beneath the shadow of
Westminster Abbey. It was one of the strangest and most solemn
events in the history of England. It reminds one of the formation of
the Swiss Confederacy on the green meadow at Griitli. After prayer
and addresses by White of Dorchester, Philip Nye, and Henderson, the
Covenant was read, article by article, from the pulpit, and every mem-
ber, standing up and lifting his right hand to heaven, took the pledge,
and then signed his name on the rolls of parchment. The House of
Lords followed a few weeks afterwards (Oct. 15). The same solemn
scene was re-enacted in almost every English town and parish where
the authority of Parliament prevailed. Cromwell among the Com-
' It is still used as a place of worship on special occasions by the Houses of Parliament.
§ 90. THE SCOTCH COVENANTS AND THE SCOTCH KIRK.
mons, and probably, also, Milton as a householder, signed the document,
though Cromwell afterwards made war on the Scots, and Milton caine
to the conclusion that ' new Presbyter is but old Priest writ large.' In
vain did the King, from his head-quarters in Oxford, forbid the League
(Oct. 9), as ca traitorous and seditious combination against himself
and the established religion of his kingdom.' It became the shib-
boleth of Puritan religion and patriotism. There were, however,
some exceptions. England, after all, was not so zealous for Presby-
terianism as Scotland, and not used to covenanting. Kichard Baxter
raised his voice against the indiscriminate enforcement of the Cove-
nant, and prevented its being taken in Kidderminster and the neigh-
borhood.1
From England the tide flowed back to Scotland, and Scotland,
stimulated by the example, outran the neighboring country in zeal for
the League. On the 13th of October, 1643, most of the nobles, in-
cluding eighteen members of the Privy Council, solemnly signed it in
Edinburgh, and from that day on for months there was <a general
swearing to the Covenant3 by the people of Scotland, as by the Parlia-
mentarians in England, from district to district, from city to city, from
village to village, from parish to parish.2
*0'er hill and dale the summons flew.
Nor rest nor pause the herald knew.
Each valley, each sequestered glen,
Mustered its little horde of men,
That met, as torrents from the height,
In Highland dales, when streams unite,
Still gathering as they pour along,
A voice more loud, a tide more strong.*
On the 29th of November, 1643, the two countries entered Into a
treaty, by which the Scots promised to furnish an army for the war,
the expenses to be refunded after the conclusion of peace. The Scots
felt that they were playing the part of the good Samaritan towards
the neighbor who had fallen among thieves. ' Surely,5 says Baillie, * it
was a great act of faith in God, and huge courage and unheard-of com-
passion3 on the part of the Scotch nation, < to hazard their own peace
1 Marsden (History of the Later Puritans, p. 77) : * Such is the weight of character : one
country clergyman prevailed against the rulers of two kingdoms.'
a Stoughton, Vol. I. p. 294 ; Masson, Vol. III. pp. 12, 13.
694 THE CREEDS 03T CHRISTENDOM.
and venture their lives and all, for to save a people so irrecoverably
ruined, both in their own and in all the world's eyes.5
• The united army fought under the banner of the Anglo-Scotch
Covenant against royal and episcopal tyranny, and for the establish-
ment of presbyterian uniformity. The negative end was gained, the
positive failed. * Trusting in God and keeping their powder dry/ the
Puritans overthrew both monarchy and prelacy, but only to be over-
thrown in turn by the Nemesis of history. No human power could
bring the two kingdoms under one creed and one form of government
and worship. Presbyterian uniformity in England was as preposterous
as Episcopal uniformity in Scotland.
The Solemn League and Covenant was weakened by the quarrel be-
tween the Presbyterians and Independents, and was virtually broken
with the destruction of the monarchy and the execution of Charles I.
(1648).1 The English army put down the Covenant which the Scotch
army had set up. After the Restoration it became an object of in-
tense hatred, and was publicly burned by the common hangman in
Westminster Hall by order of Parliament (1661). Charles II., who
had twice sworn both to the Solemn League and to the National Cove-
nant as a part of his coronation oath in Scotland (June 23, 1650, and
Jan. 1, 1651), broke his oath as soon as he ascended the English throne,
and established the royal Supremacy and Episcopacy even in Presby-
terian Scotland (1662). But the Covenanters fought for the institu-
tions of their fathers with the heroic spirit of martyrdom through all
those troubled times,
'Whose memory rings through Scotland to this hour.'
THE SCOTCH KIRK.
After severe struggles Prelacy was again overthrown and Presby-
terianism permanently re-established in Scotland by Parliament in
1690, though with a degree of dependence on the state which kept up a
constant irritation, and which led from time to time to new secessions.
1 The Westminster Assembly, or what was left of it, sympathized with Presbyterian
Scotland in loyalty to the monarchy, and unanimously signified its desire for the King's re-
lease. Forty-seven ministers, meeting at Sion College, signed a document addressed to
Fairfax, in which they protested most earnestly in the name of religion and the Solemn League
and Covenant against the military usurpation and the violence intended to the King's person.
Masson, Vol. HI. p. 716 ; Stoughton, Vol. I. p. 529.
§ 90. THE SCOTCH COVENANTS AND THE SCOTCH KIEK. 695
These secessions from the Established Kirk, down to the great exodus
of the Free Church in 184:3, were no new departures, but, like the sects
in Eussia, returns to the old landmarks. The system of Oalvinistic
Presbyterianism which the great Eeformer had established in Geneva
found in Scotland a larger and more congenial field of action, and
became there more free and independent of the civil power. It
was wrought into the bone and sinew of the nation which seems to be
predestinated for such a manly, sturdy, God-fearing, solid, persevering
type of Christianity. Komanism in the Highlands is only an unsub-
dued remnant of the Middle Ages, lately reinforced by Irish emi-
grants to the large cities. Episcopacy is an English exotic for Scotch-
men educated in England and associated with the English aristocracy.
The body of the people are Presbyterian to the back-bone. The dif-
ferences between the Established Kirk, the United Presbyterians, the
Free Church, and the smaller secession bodies seem insignificant to an
outside observer, and turn on questions of psalmody, patronage, and re-
lation to the civil government. The vital doctrines and principles are
held in common by all. Differences of opinion, which in other coun-
tries constitute merely theological schools or parties in one and the
same denomination, give rise in Scotland to separate ecclesiastical
organizations. The scrupulous conscientiousness and stubbornness
which clothe minor questions with the dignity and grandeur of funda-
mental principles, and are made to justify separation and schism, are the
shadow of a virtue. Scotland is an unconquerable fort of orthodox
Protestantism. In no other country and Church do we find such fidelity
and tenacity ; such unswerving devotion to the genius of the Kef orma-
tion; such union of metaphysical subtlety with religious fervor and
impetuosity ; such general interest in ecclesiastical councils and enter-
prizes ; such jealousy for the rights and self-government of the Church;
such loyalty to a particular denomination combined with a generous
interest in Christ's kingdom at large; such reverence for God's holy
Word and holy day, that after the hard and honest toil of the week
lights up the poorest man's cottage on * Saturday night.'
The history of Christianity, since the days of the apostles, furnishes
no brighter chapter of heroic and successful sacrifices for the idea of
the sole headship of Christ, and the honor and independence of his
Church, than the Free-Church movement, whose leaders — Chalmers,
YOL. L— T T
696 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
"Welsh, Candlish, Cunningham, Duncan, Fairbairn, Guthrie, Buchanan,
Arnot — have now one by one taken their place among the great and
good men of the past, but will continue to live in the memory of a
grateful people. Dr. Norman Macleod, himself one of the noblest of
Scotchmen, who was a member of the disruption Assembly of 1843,
and found it harder to stay in the Established Church as 4 a restorer of
the breach5 than to go out of it amid the huzzas of popular enthusiasm,
honored himself as much as Dr. Chalmers, his teacher, when he spoke
of him after his death as a man ' whose noble character, lofty enthu-
siasm, and patriotic views will rear themselves before the eyes of pos-
terity like Alpine peaks, long after the narrow valleys which have for
a brief period divided us are lost in the far distance of past history.' 1
In securing liberty for itself, the Free Church conferred a blessing
upon the mother Church by rousing it to greater activity, and setting
in motion an agitation which resulted in the total abolition of the Law
of Patronage by Act of Parliament (1875).
§ 91. THE SCOTCH CATECHISMS.
Catechetical instruction became soon after the Eeformation, and re-
mains to this day, one of the fundamental institutions of Presbyterian
Scotland, and accounts largely for the general diffusion of religious
information among the people.
The First Book of Discipline, adopted in 1560, prescribes public
catechising of the children before the people on Sunday afternoon.
The General Assembly of 1570 ordered ministers and elders to give to
all the children within their parishes three courses of religious instruc-
tion— when they were nine, twelve, and fourteen years of age. Later
assemblies enacted similar laws, and enjoined it also upon the heads
of families to catechise their children and servants. The Assembly of
1649 renewed the act of the Assembly of 1639 'for a day of weeklie
catechising, to be constantly observed in every kirk.'2
The older Catechisms, both domestic and foreign, contain the same
system of doctrine in a fresher though less logical form than the
Westminster standards, by which they were superseded after the middle
1 Memoir of Norman Mackod, by his Brother, 1876, Vol. I. p. 263 (N. Y. ed.>
a Book of Discipline, ch. xi. sect. 3 ; JBui/c of Universal Kirk, p. 121 (Peterkin's edition) ?
Horatius Bonar, Catechisms of the Scottish Reformation (London, 1866), Preface, p. xxxvii
§ 91. THE SCOTCH CATECHISMS. 697
of the seventeenth century. 4 Our Scottish Catechisms,' says Dr. Bonar,
the hyrnnist, ' though gray with the antiquity of three centuries, are not
yet out of date. They still read well, both as to style and substance ;
it would be hard to amend them, or to substitute something better in
their place. Like some of our old church-bells, they have retained for
centuries their sweetness and amplitude of tone unimpaired. It may be
questioned whether the Church has gained any thing by the exchange
of the Reformation standards for those of the seventeenth century. . . .
In the Reformation we find doctrine, life, action nobly blended. Be-
tween these there was harmony, not antagonism ; for antagonism in
such cases can only arise when the parts are disproportionately min-
gled. Subsequently the balance was not preserved : the purely dog-
matical preponderated. This was an evil, yet an evil not so easily
avoided as some think ; for, as the amount of error flung upon society
increased, the necessity for encountering it increased also ; controversy
spread, dialectics rose into repute, and the dogmatical threatened to
stifle or dispossess the vital.'1
FOREIGN CATECHISMS.
The Catechism of Calvin and the Palatinate or Heidelberg Cate-
chism were approved by the Church of Scotland, and much used in
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.2
An English edition of the former by the translators of the Geneva
Bible appeared first at Geneva, 1556, for the use of the congregation
of exiles, of which Knox was pastor, and then at Edinburgh, 1564.
The latter was printed in Edinburgh, 1591, 1615, and 1621.
NATIVE CATECHISMS.
The number of these must have been very large. King James
remarked at the Hampton Court Conference that in Scotland
every son of a good woman thought himself competent to write
a Catechism. We mention only those which had ecclesiastical sanc-
tion:
1. Two Catechisms of JOHN CRAIG- (1512-1600), an eminent minister
1 L. c. p. viii.
* See both in Dunlop's and Bonar's Collections. Comp. above, pp. 467 and 537 sq.
698 THE CREEDS Off CHRISTENDOM.
at Aberdeen, and then at Edinburgh.1 He was the author of the Second
Scotch Confession.2
The Larger Catechism of Craig was first printed in Edinburgh, by
Henrie Charteris, in 1581, and in London, 1589. The General Assem-
bly of 1590 indorsed it, and ordered an abridgment by the author,
which was approved and published in 1591. In this shorter form it
was generally used till superseded by the Westminster Catechism. The
author says in the Preface (dated July 20, 1581) : c First, I have ab-
stained from all curious and hard questions ; and, next, I have brought
the questions and the answers to as few words as I could, and that for
the ease of children and common people, who can not understand nor
gather the substance of a long question or a long answer confirmed
with many reasons.3 The work begins with some historical questions,
and then explains the Apostles' Creed, the Ten Commandments, and
the Lord's Prayer, and ends with the means of grace and the way of
salvation. The questions and answers are short, and of almost equal
length. We give some specimens from the larger work, which is little
known :
First Questions.
Ques. Who made man and woman ?
Ans. The eternal God of his goodness.
Ques. Whereof made he them ?
Ans. Of an earthly body and an heavenly spirit.
Ques. To whose image made he them ?
Ans. To his own image.
Ques. What is the image of God ?
Ans. Perfect uprightness in body and soul.
Ques. To what end were they made?
Ans. To acknowledge and serve their Maker.
Ques. How should they have served him ?
Ans. According to his holy will.
Ques. How did they know his will ?
Ans. By his Works, Word, and Sacraments.
Ques. What liberty had they to obey his will?
Ans. They had free will to obey and disobey.
Of the Sacraments.
Ques. What is a Sacrament?
Ans. A sensible sign and seal of God's favor offered and given to us.
1 Both in Bonar, pp. 187-285. The Shorter Catechism is also printed in Dunlop's Collet
fton, Vol. II. pp. 365-377.
a See p. 686 j Calderwood, Vol. DDL p. 354 ; M'Crie, J. Knox, pp. 236 sqq.
§ 91. THE SCOTCH CAtECHISM. 699
Ques. To what end are the Sacraments given ?
Ans. To nourish our faith in the promise of God.
Ques. How can sensible signs do this ?
Ans. They have this office of God, not of themselves.
Ques. How do the Sacraments differ from the Word ?
Ans. They speak to the eye, and the Word to the ear.
Ques. Speak they other things than the Word ?
Ans. No, but the same diversely.
Ques. But the word doth teach us sufficiently ?
Ans. Yet the Sacraments with the Word do it more effectually.
Ques. What, then, are the Sacraments to the Word ?
Ans. They are sure and authentic seals given by God.
Ques. May the Sacraments be without the Word ?
Ans. No, for the Word is their life.
Ques. May the Word be fruitful without the Sacraments?
Ans. Yes, no doubt, but it worketh more plenteously with them.
Ques. What is the cause of that?
Ans. Because more senses are moved to the comfort of our faith.
Baptism.
Ques. What is the signification of baptism ?
Ans. Remission of our sins and regeneration.
Ques. What similitude hath baptism with remission of sins ?
Ans. As washing cleanseth the body, so Christ's blood our souls.
Ques. Wherein doth this cleansing stand ?
Ans. In putting away of sin, and imputation of justice,
Ques. Wherein standeth our regeneration ?
Ans. In mortification and newness of life.
Ques. How are these things sealed up in baptism ?
Ans. By laying on of water.
Ques. What doth the laying on of the water signify ?
Ans. Our dying to sin and rising to righteousness.
Ques. Doth the external washing work these things ?
Ans. No, it is the work of God's Holy Spirit only.
Ques. Then the sacrament is a bare figure ?
Ans. No, but it hath the verity joined with it.
Ques. Do all men receive these graces with the Sacraments?
Ans. No, but only the faithful.
The Lord's Supper.
Ques. What signifi eth the Lord's Supper to us ?
Ans. That our souls are fed with the body and blood of Christ.
Ques. Why is this represented by bread and wine ?
Ans. Because what the one doth to the body, the same doth the other to the soul spiritually.
Ques. But our bodies are joined corporally with the elements, or outward signs ?
Ans. Even so our souls be joined spiritually with Christ his body.
Ques. What need is there of this union with him ?
Ans. Otherwise we can not enjoy his benefits.
Ques. Declare that in the Sacrament ?
Ans. As we see the elements given to feed our bodies, even so we see by faith Christ gave
his body to us to feed our souis.
700 THE CBEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Ques. Did he not give it upon the Cross for us ?
Ans. Yes, and here he giveth the same body to be our spiritual food, which we receive and
feed on by faith.
Ques. How receive we his body and blood ?
Ans. By our own lively faith only.
Ques. What followeth upon this receiving by faith ?
Ans. That Christ dwelleth in us, and we in him.
Ques: Then we receive only the tokens, and not his body ?
Ans. We receive his very substantial body and blood by faith.
Ques. How can that be proved ?
Ans. By the truth of his Word, and nature of a Sacrament.
Ques. But his natural body is in heaven ?
Ans. I no doubt, but yet we receive it in earth by faith.
Ques. How can that be ?
Ans. By the wonderful working of the Holy Spirit.
Cause and Progress of Salvation.
Ques. Out of what fountain doth this our stability flow ?
Ans. Out of God's eternal and constant [unchanging] election in Christ*
Ques. By what way cometh this election to us ?
Ans. By his effectual calling in due time.
Ques. What worketh this effectual calling in us ?
Ans. The obedience of faith.
Ques. What thing doth faith work ?
Ans. Our perpetual and inseparable union with Christ.
Ques. What worketh this union with Christ ?
Ans. A mutual communion with him and his graces.
Ques. What worketh this communion ?
Ans. Remission of sins and imputation of justice.
Ques. What worketh remission of sins and imputation of justice?
Ans. Peace of conscience and continual sanctification.
Ques. What worketh sanctification ?
Ans. The hatred of sin and love of godliness.
2. A Latin Catechism, entitled Jtudimenta Pietatis and Summula
Oatechismij for the use of grammar schools.1 It is ascribed to AN-
DREW SIMPSON, who was master of the grammar school at Perth, and
the first Protestant minister at Dunbar. It was used in the high-
school at Edinburgh down to 1710.
Besides this, the Latin editions of the Heidelberg Catechism and
Calvin's Catechism (translated by Patrick Adamson) were also in nse.
3. The Catechism of JOHN DAVIDSON, minister at Salt-Preston, ap-
proved by the Provincial Assembly of Lowthiane and Tweddale, 1599.v'
4. A metrical Catechism by the WEDDEKBTJRNS in the time of Knox.3
1 In Dunlop's Collection, Vol. II. pp. 378-882, and in Bonar, pp. 289-293.
3 Bonar, p. 324.
3 Bonar, p. 301,
§ 92. THE PURITAN CONFLICT. 701
The sentiment is better than the poetry. The Reformation in Scotland,
as well as in France and Holland, called forth metrical versions of the
Psalms, while in Germany it produced original hymns. The gospel
was sung as well as preached into the hearts of the common people.
But a Catechism is for instruction, and requires plain, clear, precise
statements for common comprehension.
VIL THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS.
§ 92. THE PUBITAN CONFLICT.
Literature.
1. Sources.
1. The Parliamentary Acts, the Minutes and Standards of the Westminster Assembly, the royal Procla-
mations, Cromwell's Letters, Milton's state papers, and other public documents. See the State Calen-
dars; RUSHWOKTII'S Collection (1616-1648); CAEDWELL'S Docum&iitary Annals of the Chivrch of England
(1546-1716) ; CAMI>EN'S Annals of James L (with the king's own works) ; WINWOOB'S Memorials of State;
and the literature mentioned in § 93 and § 94.
2. The private writings of the Episcopal and Puritan divines during the reigns of Elizabeth and the
Stuarts, too numerous even to classify. Much material for history may be drawn from the works of
Archbishop LAUD (b. 1573, beheaded 1645), especially his Diary (in the first vol. of his Remains, publ. by
H. Wharton, 1695-1700, in 2 vols. fol., and in the Anglo-Catholic Library, Oxford, 1847-1850, 5 vols.), and
of RICHAED BAXTEE (1615-1691), especially in the Narrative of his Life and Times (publ. by Sylvester,
1696, under the title Reliquiae Baxteriance, in 1 vol. foL, and by Dr. Calamy, 1713, in 4 vols., and in ed.
of his Practical Works, Lond. 1830, 23 vols. Baxter's numerous controversial tracts have never been col-
lected, and have gone, with his medical prescriptions, to 'everlasting rest,' but his practical works will
last). Mrs. LUCY HTTTOHINSOIS'S Memoirs of (her husband) Colonel Hutchinson, with Original Anecdote*
of many of his most Distinguished Contemporaries, and a Summary Review of Public Affairs (publ. from
MS. 7th ed. Lond. 1848), present an admirable picture of the inner and private life of the Puritans.
3. Innumerable controversial pamphlets and tracts for the times, which did the work of the newspapers
of to-day. From 1640 to 1660 no less than 30,000 pamphlets on Church government alone are said to have
appeared. Milton's tracts surpass all others in eloquence and force.
2. Historical.
THOMAS FTOLTSB (1608-1661, Prebendary of Sarum) : The Church History of Britain, from the Birth of
Christ until the Tear 1648. Ed. of Brewer, Oxford, 1845, in 6 vols. (Vols. V. and VI.).
CLAEENDON (1608-1674, Eoyalist and Episcopalian) : History of the Rebellion. Oxford ed. 1839 and 1849,
7 vols.
DANIEL NEAL (1678-1743, Independent) : History of the Puritans, or Protestant Nonconformist*, from the
Reformation in 1517 to the Revolution in 1688. Lond. 1732 ; Toulmin's ed. 1793, 5 vols. ; Choules's ed.
New York (Harpers), 1858, in 2 vols.
J. B. MAESI>EN (Vicar of Great Missenden) : The History of the Early Puritans, from the Reformation to
the Opening of the Civil War in 1642. Lond. 1350, 2d ed. 1853. By the same : The History of the Later
Puritans, from the Opening of the Civil War in 1642 to the Ejection of the Nonconforming Clergy in 1662.
Lozid. 1852.
HALLAM: Constitutional History of England, 5th ed. ch. vii.-xi.
TH. OAELYLB: Life and Letters of Cromwell. Lond. and New York, 1845, 2 vols. ('Edited with the
care of an antiquarian and the genius of a poet.'— Green, Hist, of the English People, p. 530.)
GUIZOT'S French works on Charles L (1C25-1649, 2 vols.), Cromwell (1649-1658), the Re-establishment of
the Stuarts (1658-1660, 2 vols.), Monk (1660, transl. by Scoble, 1851), the English Revolution 0/1640 (transl.
by Hazlitt, Lond. 185(5).
SAMTJKL HOPKINS : The Puritans during the Reigns of Edward VI. and Queen Elizdbtth. Boston, 1859-61,
3 vols.
Principal TULLOOH (Scotch Presbyt.) : English Puritanism and its Leaders : Cromwell, Milton, Baxter,
Bunyan. Lou d . 1861 .
Dr. JOHN STOUGJITON (Independent) : Ecclesiastical History of England (during the Civil Wars, the
Commonwealth, mid the Restoration). Lond. 1867-1875, 5 vols. By the same: Church and State Two
Hundred Yearn ago. A Tlixtory of Ecclesiastical A fair* in England from 1660 to 1(5(53. Loud. 1862. By the
THE CBEEDS OE CHRISTENDOM.
same: Spiritual Heroes; or, Sketches of the Puritans (Ch. VI., The Westminster Assembly, pp. 120 sqq.).
Lond.1850.
DAVID MASSON (Prof, of Khetoric and English Lit. in the Univ. of Edinb.): The Life of John Milton:
Narrated in connection with the Political, Ecclesiastical, and Literary History of his Times. Lond. 1859
80, 6 vols. See Vol. H. (1871), Books HI. and IV., and Vol. HI (1873), Books I, II., and HI.
On the early history of New England Puritanism, see the well-known works of PALFBBY, BANOBOFT,
FELT ; and LEONABD BACON'S Genesis of the New England Churches (New York, 1874)
PEOTESTANTISM AND CIVIL WARS.
The Eef ormation has often been charged by Eoman Catholic writers
with being the mother of the bloody civil wars which grew out of the
close union of Church and State, and which devastated Europe for
more than a century. But the fault is primarily on the side of Eome.
Exclusiveness and intolerance are fundamental principles of her creed,
and persecution her consistent practice wherever she has the power.
In Italy and Spain Protestantism was strangled in its cradle. In
Bohemia, Hungary, and Poland it was reduced to a struggling minority
by the civil sword and the Jesuit intrigues. In France it barely es-
caped annihilation in the massacre of the night of St. Bartholomew,
which the pope hailed with a Te Deum ; and after fighting its way
to the throne, and acquiring the limited toleration of the Edict of
Nantes, it was again persecuted almost to extermination by the most
Catholic King Louis XIV. In Switzerland the war between the Cath-
olic and Eef ormed Cantons, in which Zwingli fell, fixed the boundaries
of the two religions on a basis of equality. Germany had to pass
through the fearful ordeal of the Thirty-Tears' War, which destroyed
nearly one half of its population, but ended, in spite of the protest of
the pope, with the legal recognition of the Lutheran and Eeformed
Confessions by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The United Prov-
inces of Holland came out victorious from the long and bloody struggle
with the tyranny and bigotry of Spain. Scotland fought persistently
and successfully against popery and prelacy. England, after the per-
manent establishment of the Eeformation under Elizabeth, was shaken
to the base by an internal conflict, not between Protestants and foreign
Eomanists, but between Protestants and native Eomanizers, ultra-
Protestant Puritans and semi-Catholic Churchmen.
This conflict marks the most important period in the Church history
of that island ; it called forth on both sides its deepest moral and re-
ligious forces ; it made England at last the stronghold of constitutional
liberty in Europe, and laid the foundations for a Protestant republic
§ 92. THE PUHlTAtt CONFLICT.
in America. The Puritans were the pioneers in this struggle in Old
England, and the fathers of New England beyond the sea. As the
blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church, so freedom is the sweet
fruit of bitter persecution.
CHARACTER OF PURITANISM.
Puritanism — an honorable name, etymologically and historically,
though originally given in reproach,1 like Pietism and Methodism —
aimed at a radical purification and reconstruction of Church and State
on the sole basis of the Word of God, without regard to the traditions
of men. It was a second Eeformation, as bold and earnest as the first,
but less profound and comprehensive, and more radical in its antag-
onism to the mediaeval Church. It was a revolution, and ran into the
excesses of a revolution, which called forth, by the natural law of reac-
tion, the opposite excesses of a reactionary restoration ; but it differs
from more recent revolutions by the predominance of the religious
motive and aim. The English Puritans, the Scotch Covenanters, and
the French Huguenots were alike spiritual descendants of Calvin, and
represent, with different national characteristics, the same heroic faith
and severe discipline. They were alike animated by the fear of God,
which made them strong and free. They bowed reverently before his
holy Word, but before no human authority. In their eyes God alone
was great.
The Puritans were no separate organization or sect, but the advanced
wing of the national Church of England, and at one time they became
the national Church itself, treating their opponents as Nonconformists,
as they had been treated by them before, and as they were treated after-
wards in turn. Conformity and Nonconformity were relative terms,
which each party construed in its own way and for its own advantage.
The Puritan ministers were educated at Oxford and Cambridge, and
1 The name Puritans (from pure, as Catharists from Ka&apdo), or Precisians, occurs first
about 156-4 or 1566, and was employed to brand those who were opposed to the use of
priestly vestments, as the cap, surplice, and the tippet (but not the gown, which the Puritans
and Presbyterians retained, as well as the Continental Protestant ministers). Shakspere
uses the term half a dozen times, and always reproachfully (see Clarke's Shaksp. Concordance
and Schmidt's Shaksp. Lexicon, s. v.). In the good sense, it denotes those who went back to
the purity and simplicity of apostolic Christianity in faith and morals. Keal defines a Puritan
to be * a man of severe morals, a Calvinist in doctrine, and a Nonconformist to the ceremo-
nies and discipline of the Church, though not totally separated from it.'
704: THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
had bishops, deans, and professors of theology among their leaders and
sympathizers. Their intention was not to secede, but simply to reform
still further the national Church in the interest of primitive purity and
simplicity by legislative and executive sovereignty. The tyrannical
measures of the ruling party drove them to greater opposition, and a
large portion of them into complete independency and the advocacy
of toleration and freedom. But originally they were as intolerant and
exclusive as their opponents. The common error of both was that they
held to a close union of Church and State, and aimed at one national
Church, to which all citizens must conform.
ORIGIN AND PEOGRESS OF THE CONTROVERSY.
6 Nonconformity,' says Thomas Fuller in his quaint and pithy way,
c was conceived in the days of King Edward, born in the reign of
Queen Mary (but beyond the sea, at Frankfort-on-the-Main), nursed
and weaned in the reign of Elizabeth, grew up a youth or tall stripling
under King James, and shot up under Charles I. to the full strength
and stature of a man able not only to cope with, but to conquer the
hierarchy, its adversary.3
The open conflict between Puritanism and High-Churchism dates
from the closing years of the sixteenth century, but its roots may be
traced to the beginning of the Reformation, which embraced two dis-
tinct tendencies — one semi-Catholic, conservative and aristocratic; the
other anti-Catholic, radical and democratic.
The aristocratic politico - ecclesiastical movement, headed by the
monarch and the bishops, grew out of the mediaeval conflict of the
English crown and Parliament with the foreign papacy, and effected
Hinder Henry VIII. the national independence of the English Church,
.•and under Edward VI. a positive though limited reformation in doc-
trine and ritual.
The democratic religious movement, which sprang from the desire
of the people after salvation and unobstructed communion with God
-and the Bible, had its forerunners in Wycliffe and the Lollards, and
was nurtured by Tyndale's English Testament, the writings of the Con-
tinental Reformers, and the personal contact of the Marian exiles with
jBullinger and Calvin. At first it was nearly crushed under Henry
VIII., who would not even tolerate the circulation of the English
§ 92. THE PURITAN CONFLICT. 705
Bible ; but it gained considerable influence under Edward VI., passed
through a baptism of blood under Mary, and became a strong party
under Elizabeth. It included a number of bishops, pervaded the uni-
versities, and was backed by the sympathies of the common people as
they were gradually weaned from the traditions of popery.
Under Edward VI. the martyr-bishop Hooper, of Gloucester, a friend
of Bullinger, and one of the fathers of Puritanism, opened the ritual-
istic controversy by refusing to be consecrated in the sacerdotal gar-
ments, and to take the customary episcopal oath, which included an
appeal to the saints. He was quieted by the representations of the
young king, of Bucer, and Peter Martyr, who regarded those externals
as things indifferent ; but he continued to strive after ' an entire purifi-
cation of the Church from the very foundation.5
Under Queen Mary the conflict continued in the prisons and around
the fires of Smithfield, and was transferred to the Continent with the
English exiles, such as Jewel, Grindal, Sandys, Pilkington, Parkhurst,
Humphrey, Sampson ,Whittingham, Coverdale, Cox, Nowel, Foxe, Horn,
and Knox. It produced an actual split in the congregation at Frank-
fort-on-the-Main. There it turned on the question of the Prayer-Book
of Edward VI., whether it should be adhered to, or reformed still fur-
ther after the model of the simpler worship of Zurich and Geneva. The
episcopal and liturgical party was led by Dr. Cox (afterwards bishop
of Ely), and formed the majority ; the Puritan party was headed by
John Knox, who was required to leave, and organized another congre-
gation of exiles at Geneva.
After the accession of Elizabeth both parties flocked back to their
native land, and forgot the controversy for a while in the common
zeal for the re-establishment of Protestantism. As long as the ruling
powers favored the Reformation the Puritans were satisfied, and heart-
ily co-operated in every step. Though badly treated by the proud
queen, they were to the last among her most loyal subjects, and prayed
even in their dungeons for her welfare. They overlooked her faults
for her virtues. They were the strongest supporters of the government
and the crown against popish plots and foreign aggression, and helped
to defeat the Spanish Armada, whose c proud shipwrecks' were scat-
tered over 'the Northern Ocean even to the frozen Thule.' But when
the anti-Bomish current stopped, and the Church of England seemed
706 THE CEEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
to settle down in a system of compromise between Rome and Geneva,
fortified and hedged in by a cruel penal code against every dissent,
the radicals assumed an antagonistic attitude of nonconformity against
the rigorous enforcement of conformity, and stood up for the rights of
conscience and the progress of ecclesiastical reform.
The controversy was renewed in different ways, between Cartwright
and Whitgift, and between Travers and Hooker. In both cases the
combatants were unequally matched : Cartwright, the father of Pres-
byterianism, was a much abler man than Archbishop "Whitgift, the
father of High-Church episcopacy ; while Hooker, the Master of the
Temple, far excelled Travers, the Lecturer at the Temple, in learning
and depth. Here the question was chiefly whether the Scriptures as
interpreted by private judgment, or the Scriptures as interpreted by the
fathers of the primitive Church, should be the rule of faith and dis-
cipline. With this was connected another question— whether the Ro-
man Church had lost the character of a Christian Church, and was
therefore to be wholly disowned, or whether she was still a true though
corrupt Church, with valid ordinances, coming down through an un-
broken historical succession. The Puritans advocated Scripture Chris-
tianity versus historical Christianity, Hooker historical Christianity as
consistent with Scripture Christianity. But in substance of doctrine
both parties were Angustinians and Calvinists, with this difference, that
the Puritans were high Calvinists, the Churchmen low Calvinists.
Whitgift advocated even the Lambeth Articles, and Hooker adopted
them with some modifications. Arminianism did not make its appear-
ance in England till the close of the reign of James.
THE HAMPTON COTJBT CONFERENCE.
The accession of James I. (1603-1625) marks a new epoch. He was
no ordinary man. His learning ranged from the mysteries of predes-
tination to witchcraft and tobacco; he had considerable shrewdness,
mother-wit, ready repartee, and uncommon sense, but little common-
sense, and no personal dignity nor moral courage; he was given to
profanity, intemperance, and dissimulation. His courtiers and bishops
lauded him as the Solomon of his age, but Henry IV. of France char-
acterized him better as 'the wisest fool in Christendom.' He was
brought up in the school of Scotch Presbyterianirm, subscribed the
§ 92. THE PURITAN CONFLICT. 707
Scotch Confession, and once said of the Anglican liturgy that * it is an
ill-said mass in English.5 But the Stuart blood was in him, and when
he arrived in England he felt relieved of his tormentors, who ' pulled
his sleeve as they administered their blunt rebukes to him/ and was
delighted by the adulation of prelates who had much higher notions
of royalty than Scotch presbyters.
He lost no time in showing his true character. He answered the
famous Millenary (or Millemanus) petition, signed by nearly a thousand
Puritan ministers, and asking for the reform of certain abuses and
offenses in worship and discipline,1 by the imprisonment of ten peti-
tioners on the ground that their act tended to sedition and treason,
although it contained no demand inconsistent with the established
Church. Thus the opportunity for effecting a compromise was lost.
He agreed, however, to a Conference, which suited his ambition for the
display of his learning and wit in debate.
The Conference was held January 14, 16, and 18, 1604 (old style,
1603), at Hampton Court. The persons summoned were nine bishops,
headed by Archbishop Whitgift of Canterbury and Bishop Bancroft
of London, and eight deans, on the part of the Conformists, and four
of the most learned and moderate Puritan divines, under the lead of
Dr. John Beynolds, President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford.2 The
King himself acted both as moderator and judge, and took the leading
part in the discussion. He laid down his famous pet-principle (which
1 Euller, Vol. V. pp. 305-309. The petition was dated January 14, 1603 (old style), but
was presented April -L The real number of signers was only 825.
3 Fuller (Vol. V. pp. 378, 379) speaks in very high terms of Reynolds, who was so uncere-
moniously snubbed by Bishop Bancroft. He praises his memory, which was * little less than
marvelous,' and 'a faithful index,1 as his reason was ' a solid judex of what he read,' and his
humility, which l set a lustre on all ; communicative of what he knew to any that desired in-
formation herein, like a tree loaded with fruit, bowing down its branches to all that desired
to ease it of the burden thereof, deserving this epitaph,
t Incertum est utrum doctior an melior.'
He associates him with Bishop Jewel and Richard Hooker, all born in Devonshire, and edu-
cated at Corpus Christi College, and says, ' No one county in England have three such men
(contemporary at large), in what college soever they were bred ; no college in England bred
such three men, in what county soever they were born.' John Reynolds was at first a zeal-
ous papist and turned an eminent protestant ; while his brother William was as earnest a
protestant, and became by their mutual disputation an inveterate papist, which gave occasion
to the distich :
' Quod genus hoc pugnce. est f ubi victus gaudet utergue,
Et simul alteruter se super asse doletS
6 What war is this ? w^sn conquer'd both are glad,
AnH fjjjj?'*" «•- uave conquer'd other sad.'
708 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
he called his < aphorism3), * No bishop, no king;' l and, after browbeating
the Puritans, used as his final argument, < I will make them conform
themselves, or else I will harry them out of the land, or else do worse.'
Archbishop Whitgif t was so profoundly impressed with the King's
theological wisdom that he said, 'Undoubtedly your Majesty speaks
by the special assistance of God's Spirit ;' and Bishop Bancroft, of Lon-
don (who first proclaimed the doctrine of a jure divino episcopacy),
thanked God on his knees that of his singular mercy he had given to
them 'such a king, as since Christ's time the like hath not heen.' The
same haughty prelate rudely interrupted Dr. Eeynolds, one of the most
learned men in England, saying, < May your Majesty be pleased that the
ancient canon be remembered — Schismatici contra episoopos non sunt
audiendi ; and there is another decree of a very ancient council, that
no man should be admitted to speak against that whereunto he hath
formerly subscribed. And as for you, Doctor Eeynolds, and your asso-
ciates, how much are ye bound to his Majesty's clemency, permitting
you, contrary to the statute prime Elizabeth.^ so freely to speak
against the liturgy or discipline established.'
Fuller remarks c that the King in this famous Conference went be-
yond himself, that the Bishop of London (when not in a passion) ap-
peared even with himself, and that Dr. Eeynolds fell much beneath
himself.' The Nonconformists justly complained that the King in-
vited their divines, not to have their scruples satisfied, but his pleasure
propounded — not to hear what they had to say, but to inform them
what he would do. Hallain, viewing the Conference calmly from his
stand-point of constitutional history, says : * In the accounts that we
read of this meeting we are alternately struck with wonder at the in-
decent and partial behavior of the King and at the baseness of the
bishops, mixed, according to the custom of servile natures, with inso-
lence toward their opponents. It was easy for a monarch and eighteen
churchmen to claim the victory, be the merits of their dispute what
they might, over four abashed and intimidated adversaries.'2
1 He also said to Dr. Eeynolds : ' If you aim at a Scotch presbytery, it agreeth as well with
monarchy as God and the devil. Then Jack, and Tom, and Will, and Dick shall meet and
censure me and my council. Therefore I reiterate my former speech, Le, roy s'avisera.1
9 The accounts of the Hampton Court Conference are mostly derived from the partial re-
port of Dr. William Barlow, Dean of Chester, who was present. It appeared in 1 604, and
again in 1688. See Fuller, Vol. V. pp. 266-303 ; Cardwell, Hist, of Conferences, p. 121 ;
Procter, Hist . of the Book of Common Prayer, p. 88 ; Marsden, Early Puritans* p. 255.
§ 92. tHJE PURITAN CONFLICT.
The Conference, however, had one good and most important result —
the revision of our English Bible. The revision was suggested and
urged by Dr. Reynolds, who was subsequently appointed one of the
revisers,1 and it was ordered to be executed by King James, from
whom it has its name.2
With all his high notions about royalty, James had not the moral
courage to carry them into full practice, and with all his high notions
about episcopacy, he had no sympathy with Arminianism, but actually
countenanced the Calvinistic Presbyterian Synod of Dort, and sent five
delegates to it, among them a bishop. In both these respects Charles
went as far beyond James as Laud went beyond Whitgift and Ban-
croft.
KING- CHARLES AND ARCHBISHOP LAUD.
The antagonism was intensified and brought to a bloody issue under
Charles I. (1625-1649) and William Laud. They belong to the most
lauded and the most abused persons in history, and have been set down,
by opposite partisans among the saints and among the monsters. They
were neither. They were good men in private life, but bad men in
public. They might have been as respected and useful in a humble
station, or in another age or country, as they were hateful and hurtful
1 He was assigned to the company which was charged with the translation of the writings
of the greater and lesser Prophets. But he died in 1607, hefore the completion of the work.
2 The discussion bearing upon this subject is likewise characteristic of the King, the Bishop,
and the Puritan, and may be added here (from Fuller, Vol. V. pp. 284-, 285) :
'Dr. Reynolds. "May your Majesty be pleased that the Bible be new translated, such as
are extant not answering the original." And he instanced in three particulars :
In the Original. Ill Translated.
* Gal. iv. 25. a-vffTotxet. Bordereth.
Psalm cv. 28. They were not disobedient. They were not obedient.
Psalm cvi. 30. Phinehas executed judgment Phinehas prayed.
1 Bishop of London. " If every man's humor might be followed, there would be no end of
translating."
'His Majesty. "I profess I could never yet see a Bible well translated in English ; but I
think that of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an
uniform translation ; which should be done by the best learned in both universities, then re-
viewed by the bishops, presented to the privy council, lastly ratified by royal authority to be
read in the whole Church, and no other."
* Bishop of London. " But it is fit that no marginal notes should be added thereunto."
* His Majesty. "That caveat is well put in ; for in the Geneva translation some notes are
partial, untrue, seditious, and savoring of traitorous conceits : as when, from Exodus i. 19,
disobedience to kings is allowed in a marginal note; and, 2 Chron. xv. 16, King Asa taxed
in the note for only deposing his mother for idolatry, and not killing her. To conclude this
point, let errors in matters of faith be amended, and indifferent things be interpreted, and a
gloss added unto them ; for, as Bartolus de Regno saith, ' Better a king with some weakness
than still a change ;' so rather a Church with some faults than an innovation. And surely,
if these were the greatest matters that grieved you, I need not have been troubled with such
importunate complaints. " '
710 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
at the helm of government in Protestant England. It was their mis-
fortune rather than their crime that they were utterly at war with the
progressive spirit of their age. Both were learned, cultured, devout
gentlemen and churchmen, but narrow, pedantic, reactionary, haughty
aristocrats. The one was constitutionally a tyrant, the other constitu-
tionally a pope or an inquisitor-general. They fairly represented in
congenial alliance the principle and practice of political and ecclesi-
astical absolutism, and the sovereign contempt for the rights of the
people, whose sole duty in their opinion was passive obedience. King-
craft and priestcraft based upon divine right was their common shib-
boleth. By their suicidal follies they destroyed the very system which
they so long defended with a rod of iron, and thus they became the
benefactors of Protestantism, which they labored to destroy. Both
died as martyrs of despotism, and their last days were their best.
1 Nothing in life became them as the leaving it.3
Charles wanted to rule without a Parliament; he did so, in fact, for
more than eleven years, .and the four Parliaments which he was com-
pelled to convoke he soon arbitrarily dissolved (1625, 1626, 1629, and
1640). He preferred ship-money to legal taxation. He made himself
intolerable by his duplicity and treachery. 'Faithlessness was the
chief cause of his disasters, and is the chief stain on his memory. He
was in truth impelled by an incurable propensity to dark and crooked
ways. It may seem strange that his conscience, which on occasions of
little moment was sufficiently sensitive, should never have reproached
him with this great vice. But there is reason to believe that he was
perfidious, not only from constitution and from habit, but also on prin-
ciple. He seems to have learned from theologians whom he most es-
teemed that between him and his subjects there could be nothing of
the nature of mutual contract; and that he could not, even if he would,
divest himself of his despotic authority; and that in every promise
which he made there was an implied reservation that such promise
might be broken in case of necessity, and that of the necessity he was
the sole judge.31
1 Macaulay, chap. i. p. 65 (Boston ed.). I add the admirable description of Charles by
Mrs. Lucy Hutchinson, in the Memoirs of her husband (Bohn's ed. p. 84) : ' King Charles
was temperate, chaste, and serious ; so that the fools and bawds, mimics and catamites, of the
former court, grew out of fashion ; and the nobility and courtiers, who did not quite abandon
their debaucheries, yet so reverenced the king as to retire into corners to practice them.
§ 92. THE PURITAN CONFLICT. 711
William Laud l rose, like Cardinal Wolsey, by his abilities and the
royal favor from humble origin to the highest positions in Church and
State. He began his career of innovation early at Oxford, and asserted
in his exercise for the degree of Bachelor of Divinity (1604) the abso-
lute necessity of baptism for salvation, and the necessity of diocesan
episcopacy, not only for the well-being, but for the very existence of
the Church. This position exposed him to the charge of heresy, and
no one would speak to him in the street. Under James he was kept
back,2 but under Charles he rose rapidly, and after the death of Abbot,
Men of learning and ingenuity in all arts were in esteem, and received encouragement from the
king, who was a most excellent judge and a great lover of paintings, carvings, gravings, and
many other ingenuities, less offensive than the bawdry and profane abusive wit which was the
only exercise of the other court. But, as in the primitive times, it is observed that the best
emperors were some of them stirred up by Satan to be the bitterest persecutors of the Church,
so this king was a worse encroacher upon the civil and spiritual liberties of his people by far
than his father. He manied a Papist, a French lady, of a haughty spirit, and a great wit
and beauty, to whom he became a most uxorious husband. By this means the court was
replenished with Papists, and many who hoped to advance themselves by the change turned
to that religion. All the Papists in the kingdom were favored, and, by the king's example,
matched into the best families ; the Puritans were more than ever discountenanced and per-
secuted, insomuch that many of them chose to abandon their native country, and leave their
dearest relations, to retire into any foreign soil or plantation where they might, amidst all
outward inconveniences, enjoy the free exercise of God's worship. Such as could not flee
were tormented in the bishops' courts, fined, whipped, pilloried, imprisoned, and suffered to
enjoy no rest, so that death was better than life to them ; and notwithstanding their patient
sufferance of all these things, yet was not the king satisfied till the whole land was reduced
to perfect slavery. The example of the French king was propounded to him, and he thought
himself no monarch so long as his will was confined to the bounds of any law ; but knowing
that the people of England were not pliable to an arbitrary rule, he plotted to subdue them to
his yoke by a foreign force, and till he could effect it, made no conscience of granting any
thing to the people, which he resolved should not oblige him longer than it served his turn ;
for he was a prince that had nothing of faith or truth, justice or generosity, in him. He was
the most obstinate person in his self-will that ever was, and so bent upon being an absolute,
uncontrollable sovereign that he was resolved either to be such a king or none. His firm
adherence to prelacy was not for conscience of one religion more than another, for it was his
principle that an honest man might be saved in any profession ; but he had a mistaken prin-
ciple that kingly government in the State could not stand without episcopal government in
the Church ; and, therefore, as the bishops flattered him with preaching up his sovereign pre-
rogative, and inveighing against the Puritans as factious and disloyal, so he protected them in
their pomp and pride, and insolent practices against all the godly and sober people of the land.'
1 Born at Reading, Oct. 7, 1573 ; ordained 1601 ; Bishop of St. David's, 1621 ; of Bath
and Wells, 1626 ; of London, 1628 ; Chancellor of Oxford University, 1630 ; Archbishop of
Canterbury, 1633 ; impeached of high-treason, 1641 ; beheaded Jan. 10, 1645.
2 ' Because,' as King James said, in keen discernment of his character, 'he hath a restless
spirit, and can not see when matters are well, but loves to toss and change, and to bring
things to a pitch of reformation, floating in his own brain, which may endanger the steadfast-
ness of that which is in a good pass.' He restrained his early plans 'to make that stubborn
[Scotch] Kirk stoop to the English pattern,' for 'he knows not the stomach of that people.'
VOL. L— Z z
?12 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
who was a Puritan, he succeeded him in the primacy of the English
Church. When he crossed the Thames to take possession of Lambeth,
he met with an ominous accident, which he relates in his Diary (Sept.
18, 1633). The overloaded ferry-boat upset, and his coach sank to the
bottom of the river, but he was saved as -/y water, and f lost neither
man nor horse.5
Laud was of small stature l and narrow mind, but strong will and
working-power, hot and irascible in temper, ungracious and unpopular
in manner, ignorant of human nature, a zealous ritualist, a pedantic
disciplinarian, and an overbearing priest He was indefatigable and
punctilious in the discharge of his innumerable duties as archbishop
and prime minister, member of the courts of Star-Chamber and High-
Commission, of the committee of trade, the foreign committee, and as
lord of the treasury. He was for a number of years almost omnip-
otent and omnipresent in three kingdoms, looking after every ap-
pointment and every executive detail in Church and State.2
His chief zeal was directed to the establishment of absolute outward
uniformity in religion as he understood it, without regard to the rights
of conscience and private judgment. His religion consisted of High-
Church Episcopalianism and Arminianism in the nearest possible ap-
proach to Home, which he admired and loved, and the furthest possi-
ble distance from Geneva, which he hated and abhorred.3 But while
Arminianism in Holland was a protestant growth, and identified with
the cause of liberal progress, Laud made it subservient to his in-
tolerant High-Ghurchism, and liked it for its affinity with the Semi-
pelagianism of the Greek fathers. To enforce this Semipelagian
High-Churchism, and to secure absolute uniformity in the outward
service of God in the three kingdoms, was the highest aim of his ad^
ministration, to which he bent every energy. He could not conceive
spiritual unity without external uniformity. This was his fundamental
error. In a characteristic sermon which he preached at Westminster
before Parliament, March 17, 1628, on unity in Church and State (Eph.
1 He was called * the little Archbishop.'
8 ' His influence extended every where, over every body, and every thing, small as well as
<?reat— like the trunk of an elephant, as well suited to pick up a pin as to tear down a tree.'1
— Stoughton, Vol. I. p. 33.
3 1 must add, however, that in his hook against- Fisher the Jesuit there are a few favorable
illusions to Calvin as a theologian, especially to his doctrine of the spiritual real presence.
§ 92. THE PURITAN CONFLICT, 713
iv. 3), he says! 'Unity of any "kind will do much good; but the best
is safest, and that is unity of the Spirit. . . . The way to keep unity
both in Church and State is for the governors to carry a watchful eye
over all such as are discovered or feared to have private ends. . . .
Provide for the keeping of unity, and . . . God will bless you with
the success of this day. For this day, the seventeenth of March, Ju-
lius Caesar overthrew Sextus Pompeius. . . . And this very day, too,
Frederick II. entered Jerusalem, and recovered whatsoever Saladin
had taken from the Christians. But I must tell you, these emperors
and their forces were great keepers of unity.3 1
In the same year he caused the Eoyal Declaration to be added to
the Thirty-nine Articles to check their Calvinistic interpretation.2
From the same motive he displaced, through the agency of Wentworth
and Bramhall, the Calvinistic Irish Articles, and neutralized the influ-
ence of Archbishop Ussher in Ireland. But the height of his folly,
and the beginning of his fall, was the enforcement of his episcopal and
ritualistic scheme upon Presbyterian Scotland in criminal defiance of
the will of the people and the law of the land. This brought on the
Scotch Covenant and hastened the Civil War.
In England he filled all vacancies with Churchmen and Arminians
of his own stamp. He kept (as he himself informs us in his Diary) a
ledger for the guidance of his royal master in the distribution of pat-
ronage : those marked by the letter 0 (Orthodox) were recommended
to all favors, those marked P (Puritans) were excluded from all favors.
Bishop Morely, on being asked what the Arminians held, wittily and
truthfully replied, ' The best bishoprics and deaneries in England.' He
expelled or silenced the Puritans, and shut up every unauthorized
meeting-house. * Even the devotions of private families could not es-
cape the vigilance of his spies.3 In his eyes the Puritans were but a
miserable ' fraction3 of fanatics and rebels, a public nuisance which
must be crushed at any price. He made the congregations of French
and Dutch refugees conform or leave the land, and forbade the En-
glish ambassador in Paris to attend the service of the Huguenots.
He restrained the press and the importation of foreign books, especially
' FForfcs (Oxf. 1847), Vol. I. pp. 161, 167, 180, 181.
9 That Laud is the author of this Declaration was charged hy Prynne, and is preyed hy
the Qjcford editor of his Works, Vol. I. pp. 153 sq. Comp. above, p. 617.
THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
the favorite Geneva translation of the Bible prepared by the Marian
exiles. He stopped several ships in the Thames which were to carry
persecuted and disheartened Puritans to New England, and thus tried
to prevent Providence from writing the American chapter in history.
In this way Oliver Cromwell is said to have been kept at home, that
in due time he might overthrow the monarchy.
With equal rigor Laud enforced his ritualism, which was to him not
only a desirable matter of taste and propriety, but also an essential ele-
ment of reverence and piety. He took special care and showed great
liberality for the restoration of cathedrals and the full cathedral service
with the most pompous ceremonial ; he made it a point of vital im-
portance that the communion-tables be removed from the centre of the
church to the east end of the chancel, elevated above the level of the
pavement, placed altar-ways, railed in, and approached always with the
prescribed bows and genuflexions.1 He called the altar 'the greatest
place of God's residence on earth/ and magnified it above the pulpit,
because on the altar was Christ's body, which was more than his Word ;
but he denied the charge of transubstantiation. He introduced pict-
ures, images, crucifixes, candles, and brought out every worn-out relic
from the ecclesiastical wardrobe of the Middle Ages. Being himself
unmarried, he preferred celibates in the priesthood. In the University
of Oxford, to which he was a munificent benefactor, he was addressed
as His Holiness, and Most Holy Father.
]$To wonder that he was charged with the intention to reintroduce
popery into England. The popular mind, especially in times of ex-
citement, takes no notice of minor shades of distinction, and knows only
friend and foe. Land, no donbt, did the pope's work effectually, but
he did it unintentionally. He loved the Eoman Church much better
than the Protestant sects, but he loved the Anglican Church more.
He once dreamed, as he tells us, * that he was reconciled to the Church
1 He informed the king of ' a very ill accident which happened at Taplow, by reason of not
having the commnnion-tahle railed in, that it might be kept from profanations. For in the
sermon time a dog came to the table and took the loaf of bread prepared for the Holy Sacra-
ment in his mouth, and ran away with it. Some of the parishioners took the same from the
dog and set it again on the table. After sermon the minister could not think fit to conse-
crate this bread, and other fit for the Sacrament was not to be had in that town, so there wai
no Communion.'— Works, Vol. V. p 367. This brings to mind the grave and curious dis-
putes of the mediaeval schoolmen, on the question, what effect the consecrated wafer would
have upon a mouse or a rat.
§ 92. THE PURITAN CONFLICT; 715
of Borne,5 but was much troubled by it.1 He was twice offered, by
some unnamed agent, a cardinal's hat, but promptly declined it.2 He
preferred to be an independent pope in England, and aped the Roman
original as well as he could, with more or less show of real or imaginary
opposition that springs from rivalry and affinity. Neal says that he was
not i an absolute papist,3 but 4 ambitious of being the sovereign patriarch
of three kingdoms.3 3 From his ' Conference 3 with Fisher the Jesuit,
which is by far his ablest and most learned performance, it is very evi-
dent that he differed from Rome on several points of doctrine and
practice, such as the invocation of Mary and the saints, the worship of
images, transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, works of superero-
gation, the temporal power of the pope, and the infallibility of coun-
cils ; and that his mind, though clear and acute, was not sufficiently
logical to admit the ultimate conclusions of some of his own premises.4
He regarded the Reformation merely as an incident in the history of
the English Church, and rejected only such doctrines of Romanism
as he was unable to find in the Bible and the early fathers. In
his long and manly defense before the House of Lords he claimed to
1 Diary, March 8, 1626 (Works, Vol. III. p. 201).
a He relates, in his Diary , Aug. 4, 1633 (on the day of Archbishop Abhot's death), that
' there came one to me, seriously, . . . and offered me to be a Cardinal. I went presently
to the King and acquainted him both with the thing and the person/ On the 17th of August,
having in the mean time (Aug. 6) been appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, he had a second
offer of a red hat, and again answered 'that something dwelt within him which would
not suffer that till Borne were other than it is' ( Works, Vol. III. p. 219). In his Marginal
Notes on Prynne's Breviate (p. 266), he adds that his * conscience' also went against this.
But it is by no means certain or even probable that the pope himself (as Fuller states without
proof) authorized such an offer. It may have been a trap laid for Laud on the eve of his
elevation to the primacy. Lingard, the Roman Catholic historian of England, says that
Laud was *in bad repute in Rome* (Vol. X. p. 139), and Dean Hook, his Anglo-Catholic
biographer, asserts that he was 'dreaded and hated at Rome, 'and that his death was greeted
there with joy (Life of L. p. 233). Lingard adds, however, that t in the solitude of his cell,
and with the prospect of the block before his eyes, Laud began to think more favorably of the
Catholic [Roman] Church,' and he shows that Rosetti inquired of Cardinal Barberini whether,
if Laud should escape from the Tower, the pope would afford him an asylum in Rome with a
pension of 1000 crowns. But this is inconsistent with Laud's last defense. He was then
over seventy, and anxious to die.
3 Hist, of the Puritans, Vol. I. p. 280.
4 The Conference with Fisher (whose real name was Piersey or Percy) took place, by com-
mand and in the presence of King James, May 24, 1622, and was edited, with final corrections
and additions, by Laud himself in 1639. It was republished 1673 and 1686, and by the Ox-
ford University Press 1839, with an Introduction by Edward Cardwell. It is also included
in Vol. II. of the Oxf. ed. of his Works. Laud thought that his way of defense was the only
one by which the Church of England could justify her separation from the Church of Borne.
He bequeathed £100 for a Latin translation of this book.
716 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
have converted several persons (Chillingworth among them) from
popery, but frankly admitted that ' the Roman Church never erred in
fundamentals, for fundamentals are in the Creed, and she denies it not.
Were she not a true Church, it were hard with the Church of England,
since from her the English bishops derive their apostolic succession.
She is, therefore, a true but not an orthodox Church. Salvation may
be found in her communion ; and her religion and ours are one in the
great essentials. I am not bound to believe each detached phrase in
the Homilies, and I do not think they assert the pope to be Antichrist ;
yet it can not be proved that I ever denied him to be so. As to the
charge of unchurching foreign Protestants, I certainly said generally,
according to St. Jerome, " No bishop, no Church ;" and the preface of
the book of ordination sets forth that the three orders came from the
apostles.' In his last will and testament he says : ( For my faith, I die
as I have lived, in the true orthodox profession of the Catholic faith of
Christ, foreshadowed by the prophets and preached to the world by
Christ himself, his blessed apostles, and their successors ; and a true
member of his Catholic Church within the communion of a living part
thereof, the present Church of England, as it stands established by law.5
In one word, Laud was a typical Anglo-Catholic, who unchurched
all non-episcopal Churches, and regarded the Anglican Church as an
independent sister of the Latin and Greek communions, and as the
guardian of the whole truth as against the ' sects/ and of nothing but
the truth as against Eome. The Anglo-Catholicism of the nineteenth
century is simply a revival of Laud's system divested of its hateful
tyranny and political ambition and entanglements. Dr. Pusey, the
father of modern Anglo-Catholicism, is superior to Archbishop Laud
in learning, spirituality and charity, but in their theology and logic
there is no difference,
1 The Works of Laud embrace five volumes in the Oxford 'Library of Anglo-Catholic The-
ology.' His seven sermons preached on great state occasions abound with his high notions
of royalty, episcopacy, and uniformity, but do not rise above mediocrity. His Diary — the
chief source of his autobiography—though not * contemptible ' (as Hallam characterizes it),
is dry and pedantic, and notices trifling incidents as important occurrences, e.g., the bad state
of the weather, his numerous dreams, the marriage of K. 0. with a minister's widow, the par-
ticular posture of the Elector of the Palatinate at communion 'upon a stool by the wall before
the traverse, and with another and a cushion before him to kneel at' (Dec. 25, 1635), and his
unfortunate affairs with ' E. B.' (of which he deeply repented ; see his Devot. Vol. III. p. 81).
His Devotions are made up mostly of passages of the Psalms and the fathers, and reveal the
best side of his private character. His last prayer, as he kneeled by the block to receive the
§ 92. THE PURITAN CONFLICT. 717
THE STAR-CHAMBER AND THE HIGH-COMMISSION COURT*
The two chief instruments of this royal episcopal tyranny were the
Star-Chamber and the High-Commission Court — two kinds of inquisi-
tion— the first political, the second ecclesiastical, with an unlimited
jurisdiction over all sorts of misdemeanors, and with the power to in-
flict the penalties of deprivation, imprisonment, fines, whipping, brand-
ing, cutting ears, and slitting noses.
Freedom of speech and the press, which is now among the funda-
mental and inalienable rights of every Anglo-Saxon citizen, was pun-
ished as a crime against society. Prynne, a graduate of Oxford, and a
learned barrister of Lincoln's Inn, who published an unreadable book
{Histrio-Masti%, the Players' Scourge, or Actors' Tragedie, divided
into Two Parts) against theatres, masquerades, dancing, and women
actors, with reflections upon the frivolities of the queen, was condemned
by the Star-Chamber to be expelled from Oxford and Lincoln's Inn,
to be fined £5000, to stand in the pillory at Westminster and Cheap-
side, to have his ears cut off, his cheeks and forehead branded with
hot irons, and to be imprisoned for life. His huge quarto volume of
1006 pages, with quotations from as many authors, was burned under
his nose, so that he was nearly suffocated with the smoke. Leighton,
a Scotchman (father of the saintly archbishop), Bastwick, a learned
fatal stroke, is the crown of his prayers, and worth quoting : * Lord, I am coming as fast as I
can. I know I must pass through the shadow of death before I can come to see Thee. But
it is but umbra mortis, a mere shadow of death, a little darkness upon nature ; but Thou, by
Thy merits and passion, hast broken through the jaws of death. So, Lord, receive my soul,
and have mercy upon me ; and bless this kingdom with peace and plenty, and with brotherly
love and charity, that there may not be this effusion of Christian blood amongst them, for
Jesus Christ His sake, if it be Thy will.' The opinions on Laud are mostly tinctured by
party spirit. His friend Clarendon says, ' His learning, piety, and virtue have been attained
by very few, and the greatest of his infirmities are common to all, even the best of men.'
Prynne, who lost his two ears by Laud's influence, calls him the most execrable traitor and
apostate that the English soil ever bred ('Canterbury's Doome'). His biographers, Peter
Heylin (Cyprianus Anglicanus, Lond. 1671), John Parker Lawson (The Life and Times of
William Laud, Lond. 1829, 2 vols.), and Dr. Hook (in the Lives of the Archbishops of Can-
terbury, Vol. XI. Lond. 1875), are vindicators of his character and policy. May, Hallam,
Macaulay, Lingard, Green, Hausser, and Stoughton (Vol. I. pp. 402 sq.) condemn his public
acts, but give him credit for his private virtues. May (History of Parliament, approvingly
quoted by Hallam, chap. viii. Charles I.) says : 'Laud was of an active, or, rather, of a rest-
less mind : more ambitious to undertake than politic to carry on ; of a disposition too fierce
and cruel for his coat. He had few vulgar and private vices, as being neither taxed of cov-
etousness, intemperance, nor incontinence ; and, in a word, a man not altogether so bad in his
personal character as unfit for the state of England.'
718 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
physician, and Henry Burton, a B.D. of Oxford, and rector of a church
in London, were treated with similar cruelty for abusing in printed
pamphlets the established hierarchy. No doubt their language was
violent and coarse,1 but torture and mutilation are barbarous and re-
volting. And yet Laud not only thanked the lords of the Star-Cham-
ber for their c just and honorable sentence upon these men/ but re-
gretted, in a letter to Strafford, that he could not resort to more
* thorough' measures.
THE CIVIL WAR AOT THE COMMONWEALTH.
The excesses of despotism, sacerdotalism, ceremonialism, intolerance,
and cruelty exhausted at last the patience of a noble, freedom-loving
people, and kindled the blazing war-torch which burned to the ground
the throne and the temple. The indignant nation rose in its majesty,
and asserted its inherent and constitutional rights.
The storm burst forth from the North. The Scots compelled the
King to abandon his schemes of innovation, and to admit that prelacy
was contrary to Scripture. In England the memorable Long Parlia-
ment organized the opposition, and assumed the defense of constitu-
tional liberty against royal absolutism. It met Nov. 3, 1640, and con-
tinued till April 20, 1653, when it was dissolved by Cromwell to give
way to military despotism. The war between the Parliament and
the King broke out in August, 1642. For several months the Cav-
aliers fought more bravely and successfully than the undisciplined
forces of the Eoundheads ; but the fortunes of war changed when
Oliver Cromwell, a country gentleman, bred to peaceful pursuits, ap-
peared at the head of his Ironsides, whom he selected from the ranks
of the Puritans. It was an army such as England never saw before
or since — an army which feared God and hated the pope ; which be-
lieved in the divine decrees and practiced perseverance of saints; which
fought for religion ; which allowed no oath, no drunkenness, no gam-
1 Burton called the bishops step-fathers, eater-pillars, limbs of the beast, blind watchmen,
dumb dogs, new Babel-builders, antichristian mushrumps, etc. Prynne called them * silk
and satin divines,' and said that « Christ himself was a Puritan, and that, therefore, all men
should become Puritans.' But their opponents could be equally abusive. Lord Cottington,
one of Prynne's judges, said that, in writing the Histrio-Mastix, 'either the devil had as-
sisted Prynne or Prynne the devil.' Another judge, the Earl of Dorset, called him ' omnium
nalorum nequissimwn.
§ 92, THE PURITAN CONFLICT. 719
bling in the camp ; which sacredly respected private property and the
honor of woman ; which went praying and psalm-singing into the field
of battle, and never returned from it' without the laurels of victory.
And when these warriors were disbanded at the Restoration, they as-
tonished the royalists by quietly taking their place among the most
industrious, thrifty, and useful citizens.1
During the reign of the Long Parliament the Star-Chamber and
the High -Commission Court were ignominiously and forever swept
out of existence amid the execrations of the people. The episcopal
hierarchy and the Liturgy were overthrown (Sept. 10, 1642) ; about
two thousand royalist ministers, many of them noted for incapacity,
idleness, and immorality, others highly distinguished for scholarship
and piety — as Hammond, Sanderson, Pocock, Byron "Walton, Hall,
Prideaux, Pearson — were ejected as royalists from their benefices and
given over to poverty and misery, though one fifth of the revenues
of the sequestered livings was reserved for the sufferers.3 This sum-
mary and cruel act provoked retaliation, which in due time came with
increased severity. The leaders of despotism — the Earl of Strafford
(May 12, 1641), Archbishop Laud (Jan. 10, 1645), and at last the King
himself (Jan. 30, 1649) — were condemned to death on the block, and
thus surrounded by the halo of martyrdom. Their blood was the
seed of the Eestoration. The execution of Charles especially was in
the eyes of the great majority of the English and Scotch people a
crime and a blunder, and set in motion the reaction in favor of mon-
archy and episcopacy.
At first, however, Cromwell's genius and resolution crushed every
opposition in England, Ireland, and Scotland. On the ruins of the
monarchy and of Parliament itself he raised a military government
which inspired respect and fear at home and abroad, and raised En-
gland to the front rank of Protestant powers, but which created no
affection and love except among his invincible army. The man of
blood and iron, the ablest ruler that England ever had, died at the
of the noblest specimens of a Puritan officer was Col. Hutchinson, whose char-
d life have been so admirably described by his widow (pp. 24 sqq. Bonn's ed.)-
1 One
acter and ]
8 Comp. Marsden, The Later Puritans, pp. 40 sqq. Baxter himself allows that ' some able,
godly preachers were cast out for the war alone.' Among these was also the excellent Thomas
Fuller, the author of the incomparable books on Church History and the Worthies of Ev*
gl(wi< although in the davs of Laud he had been stigmatized as a Puritan in doctrine.
720 THE CREEDS OF .CHRISTENDOM.
height of his power, on the anniversary of his victories at Dunbar an(J
Worcester (Sept. 3), and was buried with great pomp among the le-
gitimate kings of England in Westminster Abbey (Nov. 23, 1658).1
THE RESTORATION.
The Puritan Commonwealth was but a brilliant military episode,
and died with its founder. His son Richard, amiable, good-natured,
weak and incompetent, succeeded him without opposition, but resigned
a few months after (April 22, 1659). The army, which under its great
commander had ruled the divided nation, was now divided, while the
national sentiment in the three kingdoms became united, and demand-
ed the restoration of the old dynasty as the safest way to escape the
dangers of military despotism. Puritanism represented only a minor-
ity of the English people, and the majority of this minority were
royalists. The Presbyterians, who were in the saddle during the in-
terregnum, were specially active for the unconditional recall of the
treacherous Stuarts. The event was brought about by the cautious
1 On his last days and utterances, see the Mercurius Politicus for Sept. 2-9, 1658, and Stough-
ton, The Church of the Commonwealth, p. 51 1. Macaulay pays the following tribute to Crom-
well's foreign policy : * The Protector's foreign policy at the same time extorted the ungracious
approbation of those who most detested him. The Cavaliers could scarcely refrain from
wishing that one who had done so much to raise the fame of the nation had been a legitimate
king ; and the Eepublicans were forced to own that the tyrant suffered none but himself to
wrong his country, and that, if he had robbed her of liberty, he had at least given her glory
in exchange. After half a century, during which England had been of scarcely more weight
in European politics than Venice or Saxony, she at once became the most formidable power
in the world, dictated terms of peace to the United Provinces, avenged the common injuries
of Christendom on the pirates of Barbary, vanquished the Spaniards by land and sea, seized
one of the finest West India islands, and acquired on the Flemish coast a fortress which con-
soled the national pride for the loss of Calais. She was supreme on the ocean. She was the
head of the Protestant interest. All the Reformed Churches scattered over Roman Catholic
kingdoms acknowledged Cromwell as their guardian. The Huguenots of Languedoc, the
shepherds who, in the hamlets of the Alps, professed a Protestantism older than that of Augs-
burg, were secured from oppression by the mere terror of that great name. The pope him-
self was forced to preach humanity and moderation to popish princes. For a voice which
seldom threatened in vain had declared that, unless favor were shown to the people of God,
the English guns should be heard in the Castle of Saint Angelo. In truth, there was nothing
which Cromwell had, for his own sake and that of his family, so much reason to desire as a
general religious war in Europe. In such a war he must have been the captain of the Prot-
estant armies. The heart of England would have been with him. His victories would have
been hailed with a unanimous enthusiasm unknown in the country since the rout of the Ar-
mada, and would have effaced the stain which one act, condemned by the general voice of the
nation, has left on his splendid fame. Unhappily for him, he had no opportunity of display-
ing his admirable military talents except against the inhabitants of the British Isles.' — His-
tory of England, ch. i. Carlyle says that Cromwell was the best thing thjat England ever dvj-
§ 92. THE PURITAN CONFLICT. 721
and dexterous management of General Monk, a man of expediency,
who had successively served under Charles I. and Cromwell, and wor-
shiped with Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Independents, and at last
returned to the Episcopal Church. Charles II., ' who never said a fool-
ish thing, and never did a wise one,' was received with such general en-
thusiasm on his triumphal march from Dover to London that he won-
dered where his enemies were, or whether he ever had any. The revo-
lution of national sentiment was complete. The people seemed as happy
as a set of unruly children released from the discipline of the school.1
The restoration of the monarchy was followed by the restoration of
Episcopacy and the Liturgy with an exclusiveness that did not belong
to it before. The Savoy Conference between twenty-one Episcopalians
and an equal number of Presbyterians (April 15 till July 25, 1661)
utterly failed, and left both parties more exasperated and irrecon-
cilable than before. The Churchmen, once more masters of the situa-
tion, refused to make any concessions and changes.2 Thus another op-
portunity of comprehension was lost. In the revision of the Liturgy,
which was completed by Convocation at the close of the same year
(Dec., 1661), approved by the King, and ratified by Act of Parliament
(April, 1662), not the slightest regard was paid to Presbyterian objec-
tions, reasonable or unreasonable, although about six hundred altera-
tions were made; on the contrary, all the ritualistic and sacerdotal
features complained of were retained and even increased.3 The Act
1 * Almost all the gentry of all parts went — some to fetch him over, some to meet him at
the sea-side, some to fetch him into London, into which he entered on the 29th day of May,
with a universal joy and triumph, even to his own amazement ; who, when he saw all the
nobility and gentry of the land flowing in to him, asked where were his enemies. For he saw
nothing hut prostrates, expressing all the love that could make a prince happy. Indeed, it
was a wonder in that day to see the mutability of some, and the hypocrisy of others, and the
servile flattery of all. Monk, like his better genius, conducted him, and was adored like one
that had brought all the glory and felicity of mankind home with this prince.' — Memoirs of
the Life of Col Hutchinson, p. 402.
8 The fullest account of the conference held in the Savoy Hospital, London, is given by
Baxter, who was a member, in his Autobiography. Comp. Neal, Cardwell, Stoughton
(Restor. Vol. I. p. 157), Hallam (Ch. XL Charles II.), and Procter (History of the Book of
Common Prayer, p. 113). Hallam casts the chief blame on the Churchmen, who had it in
their power to heal the division and to retain or to expel a vast number of worthy clergy-
men. But both parties lacked the right temper, and smarted under the fresh recollection of
past grievances. Baxter embodied the changes desired by the Puritans in his Liturgy, the
hasty work of a fortnight, which was never used, but republished by Prof. Shields of Prince-
ton, Philadelphia, 1867.
9 Procter (p. 141) : *Some changes were made, in order to avoid the appearance of favoring
722 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
of Uniformity, which received the royal assent May 19, 1662, and tool
effect on the ominous St. Bartholomew's Day, Aug. 24:, 1662 (involun-
tarily calling to mind the massacre of the Huguenots), required not
only from ministers, but also from all schoolmasters, absolute con-
formity to the revised Liturgy and episcopal ordination, or reordina-
tion. By this cruel act more than two thousand Puritan rectors and
vicars — that is, about one fifth of the English clergy, including such men
as Baxter, Howe, Poole, Owen, Goodwin, Bates, Man ton, Caryl — were
ejected and exposed to poverty, public insult, fines, and imprisonment
for no other crime than obeying God rather than men. A proposition
in the House of Commons to allow these heroes of conscience one fifth
of their income, as the Long Parliament had done in the removal of
royalist clergymen, was lost -by a vote of ninety-four to eighty-seven.1
Even the dead were not spared by the spirit of 'mean revenge.'
The magnates of the Commonwealth, twenty-one in number (includ-
ing Dr. Twisse, the Prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly), who had
been buried in Westminster Abbey since 1641, were exhumed and
reinterred in a pit (Sept. 12, 1661). Seven only were exempt ; among
them Archbishop Ussher, who had been buried there at Cromwell's
express desire, and at a cost of £200 paid by him. Cromwell him-
the Presbyterian form of Church government ; thus, church, or people, was substituted for
congregation, and ministers IN for OP the congregation ; priests and deacons were especially
named instead of pastors and ministers.' The Apocryphal lessons were retained, and the
legend of Bel and the Dragon (omitted in 1604) was again introduced in the Calendar of
Daily Lessons, to show contempt for the Puritan scruples. In the Litany the words * rebell-
ion* and ' schism' were added to the petition against ' sedition.'
1 Dr. Stoughton, a well-informed and impartial historian, gives it as the result of his care-
ful inquiry that the persecution and sufferings of the Episcopalians under the Long Parlia-
ment and the Commonwealth are not to be compared with the persecution of the Noncon-
formists under Charles I. and Charles II. (C%. of the Commonwealth, p. 346). Hallam is of
the same opinion. Richard Baxter, one of the ejected ministers, gives a sad account of their
sufferings : ' Many hundreds of these, with their wives and children, had neither house nor
bread. . . . Their congregations had enough to do, besides a small maintenance, to help them
out of prisons, or to maintain them there. Though they were as frugal as possible, they
could hardly live ; some lived on little more than brown bread and water ; many had but
eight or ten pounds a year to maintain a family, so that a piece of flesh has not come to one
of their tables in six weeks' time ; their allowance could scarce afford them bread and cheese.
One went to plow six days and preached on the Lord's day. Another was forced to cut
tobacco for a livelihood. . . . Many of the ministers, being afraid to lay down their ministry
after they had been ordained to it, preached to such as would hear them in fields and private
houses, till they were apprehended and cast into gaols, where many of them perished * (quoted
by Green, p. 612). Baxter himself was repeatedly imprisoned, although he was a royalist
and openly opposed Crom well's rule. For many details of suffering, see Orme's Life of Bax-
ter (Lond. 1830), pp. 229 sqq.
§ 92. THE PURITAN CONFLICT. 723
, Ireton, and Bradshaw were dug up Jan. 29, 1661, next day
dragged to Tyburn, hanged (with their faces turned to Whitehall),
decapitated, and buried under the gallows. Cromwell's head was
planted on the top of Westminster Hall.1
The Puritans were now a target of hatred and ridicule as well as
persecution. They were assailed from the pulpit, the stage, and the
press by cavaliers, prelatists, and libertines as a set of hypocritical
Pharisees and crazy fanatics, noted for their love of Jewish names, their
lank hair, their sour faces, their deep groans, their long prayers and ser-
mons, their bigotry and cant.2 And yet the same Puritanism, blind, de-
spised, forsaken, or languishing in prison, produced some of the noblest
works, which can never die. It was not dead — it was merely musing and
dreaming, and waiting for a resurrection in a nobler form. Milton's
'Paradise Lost' (1667) and Banyan's c Pilgrim's Progress' (1678) are the
shining lights which illuminate the darkness of that disgraceful period.3
1 Stanley's Hist. Memorials of Westminster Abbey, pp.191 sq., 247, 320 (3d ed. Loud. 1869).
a Butler's Hudibras fairly reflects the prevailing sentiment of the Eestoration period about
the Puritans. He caricatures them in his mock-heroic style (Part I. Canto I. vers. 192 sqq.) as
* That stubborn crew
Of errant saints, whom all men grant
To be the true Church militant :
Such as do build their faith upon
The holy text of pike and gun ;
Decide all controversy by
Infallible artillery;
And prove their doctrine orthodox
By apostolic blows and knocks ,•
Call fire, and sword, and desolation
A godly thorough Reformation,
Which always must be carried on,
And still be doing, never done,
As if religion were intended
For nothing else but to be mended.*
3 'Puritanism,' says an Oxford historian, 'ceased from the long attempt to huild up a
kingdom of God by force and violence, and fell back on its truer work of building up a king-
dom of righteousness in the hearts and consciences of men. It was from the moment of its
seeming fall that its real victory began. As soon as the wild orgy of the Eestoration was
over, men began to see that nothing that was really worthy in the work of Puritanism had
been undone. The revels of Whitehall, the skepticism and debauchery of courtiers, the cor-
ruption of statesmen, left the mass of Englishmen what Puritanism had made them — serious,
earnest, sober in life and conduct, firm in their love of Protestantism and of freedom. In
the Revolution of 1688 Puritanism did the work of civil liberty, which it had failed to do in
that of 1 642. It wrought out through Wesley and the revival of the eighteenth century the
work of religious reform which its earlier efforts had only thrown back for a hundred years.
Slowly, but steadily, it introduced its own seriousness and purity into English society, En-
glish literature, English politics. The whole history of English progress, since the Eestora-
tion, on its moral and spiritual sides, has been the history of Puritanism.' — J. E. Green's
Short History of the English People, p. 586
f 24 THE CEEEBS OF CHRISTENDOM.
With the Restoration rushed in a flood of frivolity and immorality;
the King himself setting the example by his shameless adulteries5
which he blazoned to the world by raising his numerous mistresses
and bastards to the rank and wealth of the nobility of proud old
England. * The violent return to the senses/ says a French writer
who has not the slightest sympathy with Puritanism, c drowned moral-
ity. Yirttie had the semblance of Puritanism. Duty and fanaticism
became mingled in a common reproach. In this great reaction, devo-
tion and honesty, swept away together, left to mankind but the wreck
and the mire. The more excellent parts of human nature disappeared ;
there remained but the animal, without bridle or guide, urged by his
desires beyond justice and shame.3 *
THE REVOLUTION.
Bad as was Charles II. (1660-1685), his brother, James II. (1685-
1688), was worse. He seemed to combine the vices of the Stuarts
without their redeeming traits. Charles, indifferent to religion and
defiant to virtue during his life, sent on his death-bed for a Komish
priest to give him absolution for his debaucheries. James openly pro-
fessed his conversion to Romanism, filled in defiance of law the highest
posts in the army and the cabinet with Romanists, and opened negotia-
tions with Pope Innocent XL At the same time he persecuted with
heartless cruelty the Protestant Dissenters, and outraged justice by a
series of judicial murders which have made the name of Chief Justice
Jeffreys as infamous as Nero's.
At last the patience of the English people was again exhausted, the
incurable race of the Stuarts, unwilling to learn and to forget any
thing, was forever hurled from the throne, and the Prince of Orange,
who had married Mary, the eldest daughter of James, was invited to
rule England as William IIL
RESULT.
The Revolution of 1688 was a political triumph of Puritanism, and
secured to the nation constitutional liberty and the Protestant religion.
The Episcopal Church remained the established national Church, but
1 Taine's History of English Literature, vol. i. p. 461 (Am. ed.).
§ 92. THE PUEITAN CONFLICT. 725
the Act of Toleration of 1689 guaranteed liberty and legal protec-
tion to such Nonconformists as could subscribe thirty-five and a half
of the Thirty-nine Articles of Keligion, omitting those to which the
Puritans had conscientious scruples. Though very limited, this Act
marked a great progress. It broke up the reign of intolerance, and
virtually destroyed the principle of uniformity. The Act of Uniform-
ity of 1662 was intended for the whole kingdom, and proceeded on the
theory of an ecclesiastical incorporation of all Englishmen ; now it was
confined to the patronized State Church. It recognized none but the
Episcopal form of worship, and treated non-Episcopalians as disloyal
subjects, as culprits and felons; now other Protestant Christians —
Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, and even Quakers — were placed
under the protection of the law, and permitted to build chapels and to
maintain pastors at their own expense. The fact was recognized that
a man may be a good citizen and a Christian without conforming to the
State religion. Uniformity had proved an intolerable tyranny, and had
failed. Comprehension of different denominations under one national
Church, though favored by William, seemed impracticable. Limited
toleration opened the way for full liberty and equality of Christian
denominations before the law ; and from the soil of liberty there will
spring up a truer and deeper union than can be secured by any com-
pulsion in the domain of conscience, which belongs to God alone.
Puritanism did not struggle in vain. Though it failed as a national
movement, owing to its one-sidedness and want of catholicity, it ac-
complished much. It produced statesmen like Hampden, soldiers like
Cromwell, poets like Milton, preachers like Howe, theologians like Owen,
dreamers like Bunyan, hymnists like Watts, commentators like Henry,
and saints like Baxter, who though dead yet speak. It lives on as a pow-
erful moral element in the English nation, in the English Church, in
English society, in English literature. It has won the esteem of the
descendants of its enemies. In our day the Duke of Bedford erected a
statue to Banyan (1874) in the place where he had suffered in prison for
twelve years; and Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Independents united
in a similar tribute of justice and gratitude to the memory of Baxter at
Kidderminster (1875), where he is again pointing his uplifted arm to the
saints' everlasting rest. The liberal-minded and large-hearted dean of
Westminster represented the nobler part of the English people when he
726 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
canonized those great and good men in his memorial discourses at the
unveiling of their statues. Puritanism lives moreover in New England,
which was born of the persecutions and trials of its fathers and founders
in old England, and gave birth to a republic truer, mightier, and more
enduring than the ephemeral military commonwealth of Cromwell. It
will continue to preserve and spread all over the Saxon world the love
of purity, simplicity, spirituality, practical energy, liberty, and progress
in the Christian Church.
On the other hand, it is for the children of the Puritans to honor the
shining lights of the Church of England who stood by her in the days
of her trial and persecution. That man is to be pitied indeed who
would allow the theological passions of an intolerant age to blind his
mind to the learning, the genius, and the piety of Ussher, Andrewes,
Hall, Pearson, Prideaux, Jeremy Taylor, Barrow, and Leighton, whom
God has enriched with his gifts for the benefit of all denominations.
It is good for the Church of England — it is good for the whole
Christian world — that she survived the fierce conflict of the seventeenth
century and the indifferentism of the eighteenth to take care of vener-
able cathedrals, deaneries, cloisters, universities, and libraries, to culti-
vate the study of the fathers and schoolmen, to maintain the impor-
tance of historical continuity and connection with Christian antiquity,
to satisfy the taste for stability, dignity, and propriety in the house of
God, and to administer to the spiritual wants of the aristocracy and
peasantry, and all those who can worship God most acceptably in the
solemn prayers of her liturgy, which, with all its defects, must be pro-
nounced the best ever used in divine service.
While the fierce conflict about religion was raging, there were pro-
phetic men of moderation and comprehension on both sides —
* Whose dying pens did write of Christian union,
How Church with Church might safely keep communion;
Who finding discords daily to increase,
Because they could not live, would die, in peace.'
In a sermon before the House of Commons, under the arched roof
of Westminster Abbey, Eichard Baxter uttered this sentence : ' Men
that differ about bishops, ceremonies, and forms of prayer, may be all
true Christians, and dear to one another and to Christ, if they be prac*
tically agreed in the life of godliness, and join in a holy, heavenly con-
versation. But if you agree in all your opinions and formalities, and
§ 93. THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY. 727
yet were never sanctified by the truth, you do but agree to delude your
souls, and neither of you will be saved for all your agreement.5 l
This is a noble Christian sentiment, echoing the words of a greater
man than Baxter : £ In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any
thing, nor uncircumcision,3 — we may add, neither surplice nor gown,
neither kneeling nor standing, neither episcopacy nor presbytery nor
independency — ' but a new creature.' 2
§ 93. THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY.
Literature.
I. OBIGINAH SOUBOES.
The WESTMINSTER STANDARDS— see § 94.
MINUTES OP THE SESSIONS OP THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES (from Nov. 1644 to March, 1649).
From Transcripts of the Originals procured by a Committee of the General Assembly of the Church of
Scotland, ed. by the Rev. ALEX. F. MITCHELL, D.D., and the Rev. JOHN STBUTHEBS, LL.D. Ediub. and Lond.
1874. (The MS. Minutes of the Westm. Assembly from 1643 to 1652, formerly supposed to have been lost
in the London lire of 1666, were receutly discovered in Dr. Williams's library, Grafton St., London, and
form 3 vols. of foolscap fol. They are mostly in the handwriting of APONIRAM BYFIELD, one of the
scribes of the Assembly. A complete copy was made for the General Assembly of the Church of Scot-
land, and is preserved in Edinburgh. They are, upon the whole, rather meagre, and give only the re-
sults, with brief extracts from the speeches, without the arguments.)
ROBERT BAILLIE (Principal of the University of Glasgow, and one of the Scotch delegates to the As-
sembly of Westminster, b. 1599, d. 1662) : Letters and Journals ed.from the author's MSS. "by David Laing,
Esq. Edinb. 1841-42, 3 vols. (These Letters and Journals extend from Jan. 163T to May, 1662, and ex-
hibit in a lively and graphic manner ' the stirring scenes of a great national drama,' with the hopes and
fears of the time. Vol. II. and part of Vol. III. bear upon the Westm. Assembly.)
JOHN LIGHTFOOT, D.D. (Master of Catharine Hall and Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge, one of the mem-
bers of the Westm. Assembly, b. 1602, d. 16T5) : Journal of the Proceedings of the Assembly of Divine*
from Jan. 1, 1643 to Dec. 31, 1644. In Vol. XIII. pp. 1-344 of his Whole Works, ed. by John Rogers Pitman
(Lond. 1825, in 13 vols.).
GKOKGK GILLBSPIE (the youngest of the Scotch Commissioners to the Assembly, d. 1648): Notes ofDe*
bates and Proceedings of the Westminster Assembly, ed. from the MSS. by DAVID MERE, Edinb. 1846.
Comp. also Gillespie's Aaron's Rod Blossoming (a very able defense of Presbyterianism against Inde-
pendency and Erastianism), Lond. 1646, republ. with, his other works and a memoir of his life by HETH-
BKINGTON, Edinb. 1844-46, 2 vols.
JOURNALS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND THE HOUSE OF COMMONS FBOM 1643 to 1649.
JOHN RUSHWOBTH (assistant clerk and messenger of the Long Parliament, and afterwards a member
of the House of Commons, d. 1690) : Historical Collections of remarkable Proceedings in Parliament.
Lond. 1721, 7 vols.
(The ' fourteen or fifteen octavo vols.' of daily proceedings which Dr. THOMAS GOODWIN, the eminent
Independent member of the Assembly, is reported by his son to have written 'with his own hand,1
have never been published or identified. They must not be confounded with the three folio vols. of
official minutes in Dr. Williams's library.)
HISTORICAL.
The respective sections in FULLER (Vol. VI. pp. 247 sqq.), NEAL (Part III. chaps. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10), STOTTGH-
TON (Vol. I. pp. 271, 327, 448 sqq.), MABSON (Life of M ilton, Vols. II. and III.), and other works mentioned
in S 92.
W. M. HETHEBINQTON : History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines. Edinb. 1843 ; New York, 1844.
JAMKS Krcn> : Memoirs of the Lives and Writings of those eminent Divines who convened in the famous
Assembly at Westminster. Paisley, 1811 and 1815, 2 vols.
Gen. VON RUDLOFF: Die Westminster Synode, 1643-1649. In Niedner's Zeitschrift f&r die histor. Theo*
logie for 1850, pp. 238-296. (The best account of the Assembly in the German language.)
1 Vain Religion of the Formal Hypocrite. Baxter's Works, Vol. XVII. p. 80. Quoted
by Stonghton,'p. 195. The sermon was preached Apr. 30, 1660, just before the recall of
Charles II. Sea Orme, Life of Baxter, p. 160.
1 Gal. vi. 1 5.
728 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOMS
P. SCHAFF: Art Westminster Synode, etc., in Herzog's Real-Encykl. Vol. XTOI. pp. 52 sqq., and Art.
on the same subject in his Relig. Encycl. N. Y. 1884, Vol. III. pp. 2499 sqq.
Tnos. M*CRIE : Annals of English Presbytery from the Earliest to the Present Time. Lond. 1872.
J. B. BirrrNGEB: The Formation of our Standards, in the * Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Re*
view * for July, 18T6, pp. 38T sqq.
C. A. BBIGGS: Art. Documentary History of the W^estmin8ttfA88emW$,inPres.Rev.forl8M,vp.lM-lM.
AUECAKDEU F. MITCHELL, D.D. (Prof of Oh. Hist, at St. Andrews, and ed. of the Minutes of the AsMsm-
bly) : The Westminster Assembly: its History and. Standard* London, 1883. (519 pages.)
IMPORTANCE OF THE ASSEMBLY.
It was after such antecedents, and in such surroundings, that the
"Westminster Assembly of Divines was called to legislate for Christian
doctrine, worship, and discipline in three kingdoms. It forms the most
important chapter in the ecclesiastical history of England daring the
seventeenth century. Whether we look at the extent or ability of its
labors, or its influence upon future generations, it stands first among
Protestant Councils. The Synod of Dort was indeed fully equal to it
in learning and moral weight, and was more general in its composi-
tion, since it embraced delegates from nearly all Reformed Churches ;
. while the Westminster Assembly was purely English and Scotch, and its
standards even to-day are little known on the Continent of Europe.1
But the doctrinal legislation of the Synod of Dort was confined to the
five points at issue between Calvinism and Arminianism ; the Assem-
bly of Westminster embraced the whole field of theology, from the
eternal decrees of God to the final judgment. The Canons of Dort
have lost their hold upon the mother country; the Confession and
Shorter Catechism of Westminster are as much used now in Anglo-
Presbyterian Churches as ever, and have more vitality and influence
than any other Calvinistic Confession.
It is not surprising that an intense partisan like Clarendon should
disparage this Assembly.3 Milton's censure is neutralized by his praise,
1 It is characteristic that Dr. Niemeyer published his collection of Beformed Confessions,
the most complete we have, at first without the Westminster Standards, being unable to find
a copy, and issued them afterwards in a supplement. Dr. Winer barely mentions the
Westminster Confession in his Symbolik, and never quotes from it. If German Church his-
torians (including Gieseler) were to be judged by their knowledge of English and American
affairs, they would lose much of the esteem in which they are justly held. What lies west-
ward is a terra incognita to most of them. They are much m'ore at home in the by-ways
of the remote past than in the living Church of the present, outside of Germany.
* Clarendon, who hated Presbyterianism as a plebeian religion unfit for a gentleman, dis-
poses of the Westminster Assembly in a few summary and contemptuous sentences : * Of
about one hundred and twenty members,' he says, 'of which the Assembly was to consist,
a few very reverend and worthy persons were inserted ; yet of the whole number there were
»ot above twenty who were not declared and avowed enemies of the doctrine or discipline
§ 93. THE WESTMINSTEB ASSEMBLY. 729
for, although he hated presbytery only less than episcopacy, he called
the Assembly a ' select assembly,5 ' a learned and memorable synod,' in
which c piety, learning, and prudence were housed.5 This was two years
after the Assembly had met, when its character was fully shown. He
afterwards changed his mind, chiefly for a personal reason — in con-
sequence of the deservedly bad reception of his unfortunate book on
' Divorce,5 which he had dedicated in complimentary terms to this very
Assembly and to the Long Parliament.1
Richard Baxter, who was not a member of the Assembly, but knew
it well, and was a better judge of its theological and religious charac-
ter than either Clarendon or Milton, pays it this just tribute : ' The
divines there congregated were men of eminent learning, godliness,
ministerial abilities, and fidelity ; and being not worthy to be one of
them myself, I may the more freely speak the truth, even in the face
of malice and envy, that, as far as I am able to judge by the infor-
mation of all history of that kind, and by any other evidences left us,
the Christian world, since the days of the apostles, had never a synod
of more excellent divines (taking one thing with another) than this
and the Synod of Dort.7 He adds, however, ' Yet, highly as I honor
the men, I am not of their mind in eveiy part of the government which
they have set up. Some words in their Catechism I wish had been
more clear ; and, above all, I wish that the Parliament, and their more
skillful hand, had done more than was done to heal our breaches, and
had hit upon the right way, either to unite with the Episcopalians and
Independents, or, at least, had pitched on the terms that are fit for uni-
versal concord, and left all to come in upon those terms that would.' 2
of the Church of England ; some were infamous in their lives and conversations, and most
of them of very mean parts in learning, if not of scandalous ignorance ; and of no other
reputation but of malice to the Church of England.' These charges are utterly without
foundation, and belong to the many misrepresentations and falsehoods which disfigure his
otherwise classical History of the Rebellion. The number of members was 151.
i In his Fragments of a History of England (1670), Milton speaks both of the Long Par-
liament and the Assembly in vindictive scorn, and calls the latter 'a certain number of divines
neither chosen by any rule or custom ecclesiastical, nor eminent for either piety or knowledge
above others left out ; only as each member of Parliament, in his private fancy, thought fit,
so elected one by one. ' He charges them with inconsistency in becoming pluralists and non-
residents, and with intolerance, as if * the spiritual power of their ministry were less available
than bodily compulsion,* and the authority of the magistrate ' a stronger means to subdue and
bring in conscience than evangelical persuasion.' On his unhappy marriage and his tracts on
Divorce growing out of it, see Masson, Vol. III. pp. 42 sqq.
* Life and Times, Pt. I. p. 73. Comp. Orme's Life of Baxter,, p. 69.
730 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Hallam censures the Assembly for its intolerant principles, but ad
mits that it was 'perhaps equal in learning, good sense, and other
merits to any Lower House of Convocation that ever .made a figure in
England.' One of the best-informed German historians says of the
Assembly : t A more zealous, intelligent, and learned body of divines
seldom ever met in Christendom.' l
The chief fault of the Assembly was that it clung -to the idea of a
national State Church, with a uniform system of doctrine, worship, and
discipline, to which every man, woman, and child in three kingdoms
should conform. But this was the error of the age ; and it was only
after a series of failures and persecutions that the idea of religious
freedom took root in English soil.
APPOINTMENT OF THE ASSEMBLY.
Soon after the opening of the Long Parliament the convening of a con-
ference of divines for the settlement of the theological and ecclesiastical
part of the great conflict suggested itself to the minds of leading men.
The first bill of Parliament to that effect was conceived in a spirit hostile
to the Episcopal hierarchy, but rather friendly to the ancient liturgy,
and was passed Oct. 15, 1642, but failed for the want of royal assent.
As the king's concurrence became hopeless, Parliament issued on its
own responsibility an ordinance, June 12, 1643, commanding that an
assembly of divines should be convened at Westminster, in London, on
the first day of July following, to effect a more perfect reformation of
the Church of England in its liturgy, discipline, and government on the
basis of the Word of God, and thus to bring it into nearer agreement
with the Church of Scotland and the Beforrned Churches on the Con-
tinent Presbyterianism was not mentioned, but pretty plainly pointed
at. The Assembly was to consist of one hundred and fifty-one mem-
bers in all, viz., thirty lay assessors (ten Lords and twenty Commoners),
who were named first,2 and included such eminent scholars, lawyers,
and statesmen as John Selden, John Pym, Boulstrode Whitelocke,
Oliver St. John, Sir Benjamin Eudyard, and Sir Henry Vane, and of
1 General Rudloff, in his article above quoted, p. 263.
2 * There must be some laymen in the Synod to overlook the clergy, lest they spoil the
civil work ; just as when the good woman puts a cat into the milk-house to kill a mouse, she
sends her maid to look after the cat, lest the cat eat up the cream.' — Selden, TabU-Talk,
p. 169. (Quoted by Stoughton and Stanley.)
§ 93. THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY. 731
one hundred and twenty-one divines, who were selected from the dif-
ferent counties, chiefly from among the Presbyterians, with a few of
the most influential Episcopalians and Independents. Forty members
constituted a quorum.
The Assembly was thus created by State authority. In like manner,
the ancient oecumenical councils were called by emperors, and the
Synod of Dort by the government of the United Provinces. The
English Convocations also can not meet, nor make canons, nor discuss
topics without royal license. The twenty-first of the Thirty-nine
Articles forbids the calling of General Councils except ' by the com-
mand and will of princes.' Parliament now exercised the privilege
of the crown, and usurped the ecclesiastical supremacy. It nominated
all the members, with the exception of the Scotch commissioners, who
were appointed by the General Assembly, and were admitted by Parlia-
ment. It fixed the time and place of meeting, it prescribed the work,
and it paid the expenses (allowing to each member four shillings a day) ;
it even chose the prolocutor and scribes, filled the vacancies, and re-
served to its own authority all final decision; reducing thus the As-
sembly to an advisory council. Hence even the Westminster Con-
fession was presented to Parliament simply as a c humble Advice.'
But with all its horror of ecclesiastical despotism, engendered by the
misgovernment of Laud, the Long Parliament was the most religious
political assembly that ever met in or out of England, and was thor-
oughly controlled by the stern spirit of Puritanism. Once constituted,
the Assembly was not interfered with, and enjoyed the fullest freedom
of debate. Its standards were wholly the work of competent divines,
and received the full and independent assent of ecclesiastical bodies.
The king by proclamation prohibited the meeting of the Assembly,
and threatened those who disobeyed his order with the loss of all their
ecclesiastical livings and promotions. This unfortunately prevented
the attendance of loyal Episcopalians.
COMPOSITION AUJTD PARTIES.
It was the intention of Parliament to comprehend within the As-
sembly representatives of all the leading parties of the English Church
with the exception of that of Archbishop Laud, whose exclusive High-
Churchism and despotism had been the chief cause of the troubles in
732 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Church and State, and made co-operation impossible.1 The selection
was upon the whole judicious, though some of the ablest and soundest
Puritan divines, as Eichard Baxter and John Owen, were omitted. Scot-
land came in afterwards, but in time to be of essential service and to
give the Assembly a strong Presbyterian preponderance. The Colonial
Churches of New England were invited by a letter from members of
Parliament (Sept, 1642) to send the Bev. John Cotton, Thomas Hooker,
and John Davenport as delegates ; but they declined, because compli-
ance would subject them to all the laws that might be made, and might
prove prejudicial to them. Hooker, of Hartford, 4 liked not the busi-
ness,' and deemed it his duty rather to stay in quiet and obscurity with
his people in Connecticut than to go three thousand miles to plead for
Independency with Presbyterians in England. Davenport could not
obtain leave from his congregation at New Haven. Cotton, of Boston,
would not go alone.2
The Assembly itself, by direction of Parliament, addressed fraternal
letters to the Belgic, French, Helvetic, and other Eeformed Churches
(Nov. 30, 1643), and received favorable replies, especially from Holland,
Switzerland, and the Huguenot congregation in Paris.3 Hesse Cassel
advised against meddling with the bishops. The king issued a counter
manifesto from Oxford, May 14, 1644, in Latin and English, to all for-
eign Protestants, and denied the charge of designing to introduce
popery.4
As to doctrine, there was no serious difference among the members.
They all held the Calvinistic system with more or less rigor. There
were no Arminians, Pelagians, or Antinomians among them.
But in regard to Church government and discipline the Assembly
was by no means a unit, although the Scotch Presbyterian polity
ultimately prevailed, and became for a brief season, by act of Parlia-
ment, even the established form of government in England. The most
frequent and earnest debates were on this point rather than on doctrine
1 Laud says of the Assembly : * The greatest part of them were Brownists, or Independ-
ents, or New England ministers, if not worse ; or at best enemies to the doctrine and dis-
cipline of the Church of England/ The facts are, that the Independents were a small mi-
nority, and that New England was not represented at all.
2 Masson, Life ofMilton,Vol II. p. 605 ; Bancroft, History of the United States of America
(Centennial ed. 1876), Vol. I. pp. 331, 332.
3 See the correspondence in Neal, Vol. I. pp. 470 sqq. (Harper's ed.).
*Neal,Vol.I. p. 472.
§ 93. THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY. 733
and worship. This conflict prevented the Assembly, says Neal (an In-
dependent), from 'laying the top stone of the building, so that it fell to
pieces before it was perfected.' Hereafter the common name of Pur-
itans gave way to the party names of Presbyterians and Independents.
We may arrange the members of the Assembly under four sections :l
I. The EPISCOPALIANS. Parliament elected four prelates, viz.: JAMES
TJssHEB (Archbishop of Armagh and Bishop of Carlisle), BBOWNEIGG
(Bishop of Exeter), WESTFIELD (Bishop of Bristol), PEIDEAUX (Bishop
of Worcester) ;2 and five doctors of divinity, viz. : Drs. FEATLEY (Prov-
ost of Chelsea College), HAMMOND (Canon of Christ's Church, Oxford),
HOLDSWOBTH (Master of Emmanuel College, Cambridge), SANDEBSON
(afterwards Bishop of Lincoln), and MOBLEY (afterwards Bishop of
Winchester). An excellent selection. But with one or two exceptions
they never attended, and could not do so without disloyalty and disobe-
dience to the king; besides, they objected to the company with an
overwhelming number of Puritans, and a council not elected by the
clergy and mixed with laymen. Ussher is said to have attended once,
but on no good authority; he was present, however, in spirit, and
great respect was paid to his theology by the Assembly.3 Brownrigg
sent in an excuse for non-attendance. Westfield was present, at least,
at the first meeting. Dr.Featley, a learned Calvinist in doctrine, and
a violent polemic against the Baptists, was the only Episcopalian
who attended regularly and took a prominent part in the proceedings
until, after the adoption of the Scotch Covenant, he was expelled by
Parliament for revealing, contrary to pledge, the secrets of the Assem-
bly in a letter to Ussher, then in the king's headquarters at Oxford,
and was committed to prison (Sept. 30, 1643). This act of severity is
strongly condemned by Baxter. Here ends the connection of Episco-
pacy with the Assembly.
Before this time Parliament had been seriously agitated by the
Episcopal question. As early as Nov. 13, 1640, the < Eoot and Branch'
party sent in a petition signed by 15,000 Londoners for the total over-
1 Comp. the full accounts in Neal, Part III. ch. iv. (Vol. I. pp. 488 sqq.), Hetherington,
Stoughton, and Masson.
2 Prideaux's name seems to have been omitted in the final ordinance of June, 1643.
3 Ussher was a second time appointed by the House of Commons a member of the Assem-
bly when he came to London in 1647, and on his petition received permission to preach in
Lincoln's Inn. — Journals of the House of Commons^ Vol. V. p. 423 (quoted by Dr. Mitchell).
734 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
throw of the Episcopal hierarchy, while 700 clerical petitioners prayed
merely for a reduction and modification of the same. Badicalism tri-
umphed at last under the pressure of political necessity and the popular
indignation created by Laud's heartless tyranny. First the bishops
were excluded from the House of Lords (Feb. 5, 1642), with the re-
luctant assent of the king ; and then the hierarchy itself was decreed
out of existence (Sept. 10, 1642), the bill to take effect Nov. 5, 1643,1
but the ordinances to carry this measure into full effect were not passed
till Oct. 9 and Nov. 16, 1646.2 The old building was destroyed before
a new building was agreed upon. This was the very question to be
decided by the Assembly ; hence the interval between the law and its
execution. For nearly twenty years the Episcopal Church, though not
legally abolished, from want of royal assent, was an ecclesia jpressa et
illicita on her own soil.
Among the scores or hundreds of pamphlets which appeared in this
war upon the bishops, the five anti-Episcopal treatises of John Milton
were the most violent and effective. He attacked the English hierarchy,
especially as it had developed itself under the Stuarts, with a force and
majesty of prose which is unsurpassed even by his poetry. He went so
far as to call Lucifer ' the first prelate-angel,' and treats Ussher with
lofty contempt as a mere antiquarian or dryasdust. c He rolls/ says
his biographer, c and thunders charge after charge ; he tasks all his
genius for epithets and expressions of scorn ; he says things of bishops,
archbishops, the English Liturgy, and some of the dearest forms of the
English Church, the like of which could hardly be uttered now in any
assembly of Englishmen without hissing and execration.'3
2. The PRESBYTERIANS formed the great majority and gained strength
as the Assembly advanced. Their Church polity is based upon the two
principles of ministerial parity, as to ordination and rank (or the orig-
inal identity of presbyters and bishops), and the self-government of the
1 ' An act for the utter abolishing and taking away of all avchhishops, bishops, their chan-
cellors and commissaries, ' etc. Clarendon says that marvelous art was used, and that the
majority of the Commons were really against the bill ; but the writer of the ' Parliamentary
Chronicle ' says that it passed unanimously, and was celebrated by bonfires and the ringing
of bells all over London.— Neal, Vol. I. p. 421. Hallam also follows the latter account.
aNeal,Vol.II. pp. 8/5 sq.
3 Masson, Vol. II. p. 245. Comp. pp. 356 sqq,, and the just estimate of Stoughton, The
Ch. of the Civil Wars. p. 129.
§ 93. THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY. 735
Church by representative judicatories composed of clerical and lay
members. It was essentially the scheme of Calvin as it prevailed
in the Eeformed Churches on the Continent, and was established in
Scotland.
The Scots seemed to be predestinated for Calvinistic Presbyterianism
by an effective decree of Providence. The hostility of their bishops
to the Keformation, and the repeated attempts of the Stuarts to force
English institutions upon them, filled the nation with an intense aversion
to Episcopacy and liturgical worship. Bishop Bancroft, of London, the
first real High-Church Episcopalian, called English Presbyterianism an
c English Scottizing for discipline.'
In England, on the contrary, Episcopacy and the Prayer-Book were
identified with the Keformation and Protestant martyrdom, and hence
were rooted in the affections of the people. Besides, the early bishop**
were in fraternal correspondence with the Swiss Churches. But in the
latter part of Elizabeth's reign, when Episcopacy took exclusive ground
and rigorously enforced uniformity against all dissent, Presbyterian-
ism began to raise its head under the lead of two eminent Calvinists,
THOMAS CARTWETGHT (1535-1603), Professor of Theology in Cambridge,
and WALTER TRAVERS (d. 1624), Preacher in the Temple, London, after-
wards Provost of Trinity College, Dublin. The former was in con-
flict with the High-Churchism of Archbishop Whitgif t ; l the latter with
the moderate Churchism of Richard Hooker, who was far his superior
in ability, and whom he himself esteemed as ' a holy man.' The first
English presbytery within the prelatic Church, as an ecdesiola in ec-
desia, was formed at Wandsworth, in Surrey, in 1572, and Cartwright
drew up for it a ' Directory of Church-Government,7 or 'Book of Dis-
cipline,' in 1583, which is said to have been subscribed by as many as
five hundred clergymen, and which was printed by authority of Parlia-
ment in 1644:.2
1 Even Whitgift, however, did not go to the extreme of jure divino Episcopacy, but admitted
that the Scripture has not set down ' any one certain form of Church government to be per-
petual.' Cartwright, on the other hand, was an able and earnest, but radical Presbyterian,
and with Calvin and Beza advocated the death penalty for heretics.
a A fac-simile of this Directory was reproduced in London, 1872 (James Nesbit & Co.), for
the tercentenary celebration of the Presbytery at Wandsworth, with an introduction by Prof.
Lorimer. On Cartwright and the Elizabethan Presbyterianism, comp. Mas son, Life of Mil-
ton, Vol. II. pp. 581 sqq., and M'Crie, Annals of English Presbytery, pp. 87-131.
736 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
This anomalous organization was stamped out by authority, but the
recollection of it continued through the reigns of James and Charles,
and gathered strength with the rising conflict.
The Westminster divines, with the exception of the Scotch Com-
missioners and two French Eeformed pastors of London,1 were in
Episcopal orders, and graduates of Oxford and Cambridge, and there-
fore as a body not opposed to Episcopacy as such. A goodly number
inclined to Ussher's scheme of a ' reduced3 or limited Episcopacy, i.e.,
a common government of the Church by presbyters under the super-
vision of the bishop as primus inter pares?
Had the moderate Episcopalians attended, the result would probably
have been a compromise between Episcopacy and Presbytery. But
the logic of events which involved Parliament in open war with the
stubborn king, and necessitated the calling in of the aid of Presbyterian
Scotland, changed the aspect of affairs. The subscription of the c Sol-
emn League an<] Covenant ' (Sept., 1643) bound both the Parliament
and the Assembly to the preservation of the doctrine, worship, and dis-
cipline of the Church of Scotland and the extirpation of popery and
prelacy (£<s.,the government of the Church by archbishops and bishops).
There were, however, two classes of Presbyterians, corresponding to
the Low and High Church Episcopalians. The liberal party maintained
that the Presbyterian form of government was based on human right,
and { lawful and agreeable to the Word of G-od/ but subject to change
according to the wants of the Church. The high and exclusive Pres-
byterians of the school of Andrew Melville maintained that it was
based on divine right, and ' expressly instituted or commanded ' in the
New Testament as the only normal and unchangeable form of Church
polity. TWISSE, G-ATAEER, KEYNOLDS, PALMER, and many others ad-
vocated thej'us humanum of Presbytery, all the Scotch Commission-
ers and the five * Smectymnuans,' 3 so called from their famous tract
1 Samuel de la Place and Jean de la March.
9 The Reduction of Episcopacy unto the Form of Synodical Government received in the An*
rient Church, written in 1641, but not fully published till 1658, and brought forward again aftei
the Restoration ; in Ussher's Works by Elrington, Vol. XII. Comp. Masson,Vol. II. p. 230.
3 The Smectymnuans were Stephen Marshall, Edmund Calamy, Thomas Young (the chief
author), Matthew ETewcomen, and William Spurstow. The oddity and ugliness of the title, com"
posed of the initials of each author, helped the circulation and provoked witty rhymes, such ai
'The Sadducees would raise the question,
Who must be Smeo at the resurrection.'
§ 93. THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY. 737
Swectymnuus, in reply to Bishop Hall's defense of Episcopacy (March,
164:1), advocated the jus divinum. The latter triumphed, but for the
sake of union they had to forego some details of their theory.1
The sequel, however, proved that Presbyterianism, so congenial to
Scottish soil, was an artificial plant in England. Milton's prophetic
words were fulfilled : < Woe be to you, Presbyterians especially, if ever
any of Charles's race recovers the English sceptre I Believe me, you
shall pay all the reckoning.' Independency has ultimately far out-
grown Presbytery, and is preferred by the English mind because it
comes nearer to Episcopacy in making each pastor a bishop in his
own congregation. Baxter says that Ussher agreed with the Inde-
pendents in this, * that every bishop was independent, and that synods
and councils were not so much for government as concord.32 If
Presbyterianism has recently taken a new start and made great prog-
ress in London and other cities of England, it is owing mostly to the
immigration of energetic and liberal Scotchmen and the high character
of its leading ministers.
3. The INDEPENDENTS, called c the five dissenting brethren ' by the
Presbyterians. They were led by Dr. THOMAS GOODWIN and Rev.
PHILIP NYE.S Though small in number (twelve at the most), they were
strong in ability, learning, and weight of character, and possessed the
confidence of the rising Cromwell and the army, as well as the distant
colonies in New England. Some of them had been driven to Holland
1 One of the dividing questions was that of ruling elders. 'Sundry of the ablest,' says
Baillie (Vol. II. pp. 110 sq.), * were flat against the institution of any such officer by divine right,
such as Dr. Smith, Dr. Temple, Mr. Gataker, Mr. Vines, Mr. Price, Mr. Hall, and many
more, besides the Independents, who truly spake much and exceedingly well. The most of
the Synod was in our opinion, and reasoned bravely for it ; such as Mr. Seaman, Mr. Walker,
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Newconien, Mr. Young, Mr. Calamy. Sundry times Mr. Henderson,
Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Gillespie, all three spoke exceedingly well. When all were tired, it
came to the question. There was no doubt but we would have carried it by far most voices ;
yet because the opposites were men very considerable, above all gracious little Palmer, we
agreed upon a committee to satisfy, if it were possible, the dissenters.' He afterwards ex-
presses the hope that the advance of the Scotch army ' will much assist our arguments.'
2 Quoted by Neal, Vol. I. p. 493.
3 The others were JEREMIAH BURROUGHS, WILLIAM BRIDGE, and STDRAOH SIMPSON.
These five were the signers of the 'Apologetic Narration/ Afterwards William Carter, Will-
iam Greenhill, John Bond (perhaps also Anthony Burgess), joined them. Baillie (Vol. II.
p. 110) counts ten or eleven, including Carter, Caryl, Philips, and Sterry. Among its lay-
assessors Lord Viscount Say and Seale and Sir Harry Vane sympathized with the Independ-
ents. Neal says : ' Their numbers were small at first, though they increased prodigiously and
j;rew to.a Considerable figure under the protectorship of Oliver Cromwell,'
738 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
by the persecution of Laud and Wren, and had administered to con-
gregations of their expatriated countrymen, which occupied a middle
ground between Brownism and Presbytery, after the model of John
Robinson's pilgrims in Leyden. They were allowed the use of the
Reformed churches, with liberty to ring the bell for service. After
their return they advocated congregational independency and tolera-
tion, which the Presbyterians abhorred.1 The Independents maintained
that a Christian congregation should consist of converted believers, and
govern itself according to Christ's law, without being subject to the
jurisdiction of presbyteries and synods, and that such a congregation
had even a right to ordain its own minister. They fought the Presby-
terians at every step on the questions of ruling elders, ordination,
jurisdiction of presbyteries and synods, toleration, and threatened at
times to break up the harmony of the meeting.
The longest debate, called ' the Grand Debate,' which lasted thirty
days, was on the divine right of presbytery. And yet the two parties
had great respect for each other. * I wish,' said Gillespie, in the heat
of the controversy, < the dissenting brethren prove to be as unwilling
to divide from us as we have been unwilling to divide from them. I
wish that, instead of toleration, there may be a mutual endeavor for a
happy accommodation.'2
The Independents appealed, rather inconsistently, to Caesar, and ad-
dressed ' An Apologetic Narration to Parliament' (Dec., 1643). Under
the Protectorate of Cromwell they became the ruling party, and had
great political influence; but after the Restoration they resolved to
seek for toleration outside of the National Church rather than for com-
prehension within it. New England was their Eldorado.3
4. The ERAS-HANS* maintained the ecclesiastical supremacy of the
civil government in all matters of discipline, and made the Church a
department of the State. They held that clergymen were merely
1 Baillie declares 'liberty of conscience and toleration of all or any religion' (as advocated
by Roger Williams against John Cotton) to be * so prodigious an impiety that this religious
Parliament can not but abhor the very naming of it.' — Tracts on liberty of Conscience
(published by the Hansard Knollys Society), p. 270, note. But Baillie was opposed to the
employment of * secular violence ' in dealing with heretics. See M'Crie, p. 191.
9 Minutes, p. 28.
3 On the Independent controversy, see Baillie, Gillespie, and Masson (Vol. III. pp. 18 sqq.)-
* So called from the Swiss professor and physician, ERASTUS, properly LIEBLBB, or LIBBER,
who wrote against Bullinger and Beza, and died at Basle, 1583.
§ 93. THE WESTMINSTEK ASSEMBLY. 739
teachers, not rulers, and that the power of the keys belonged to the
secular magistrate. They hoped in this way to secure national unity
and to prevent an imperium in imperio and all priestly tyranny over
conscience ; but in fact they simply substituted a political for an ec-
clesiastical despotism, a csesaropapacy for a hierarchical papacy.
They were willing to snbmit to a jure humane Presbyterianism, but
they denied that any particular form of Church government was pre-
scribed in the New Testament, and claimed for the State the right to
establish such a form as might be most expedient.
The advocates of Erastianism in the Assembly were SELDEN, LIGHT-
FOOT, and OOLEMAN, all distinguished for Hebrew learning, which they
used to good advantage. They appealed to the example of Moses and
the kings of Israel, and the institutions of the Synagogue. They were
backed by the lawyers among the lay-assessors and by the House of
Commons, most of whom were (according to Baillie) * downright
Erastians.' The Assembly itself owed its existence to an act of Eras-
tianism.
In strong opposition to them the Presbyterians maintained that the
Lord Jesus, as sole King and Head of his Church, has appointed a spir-
itual government with distinct officers.
The controversy was ably conducted on both sides, and, we may say,
exhausted.1
The Independents and Erastians withdrew before the final adoption
of the Book of Discipline, and left the field to the Presbyterians. The
Presbyterian Church polity was at length established by the English
Parliament, which ordained, June 29, 1647, that £ all parishes within
England and Wales be brought under the government of congrega-
tional, classical, provincial, and national churches, according to the
form of Presbyterial government agreed upon by the Assembly of
Divines at Westminster.3 Provinces were to take the place of dioceses,
and were again divided into classes or presbyteries, and these were to
1 The chief books on the Erastian side are Selden's De Synedriis and Lightfoot's Journal;
on the Presbyterian side, Gillespie's Aaron's Rod Blossoming, or, the Divine Ordinance of
Church-Government Vindicated (dedicated to the Westminster Assembly; a very learned
book of 590 pages), and Kutherford's Divine Might of Church Government (both published
in London, 1646). The Erastian controversy was afterwards transferred to Scotland, and
led to several secessions. Comp. Principal Cunningham's Essay on the Erastian controversy
in his Historical Theology, Vol. II. pp. 557-588.
THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
elect representatives to a national assembly. But Parliament retained
an Erastian power in its own hand, and would not permit even exclu-
sion from the Lord's table without allowing to the offender recourse to
the civil courts. Presbyterianism was nominally the established re-
ligion, but only in two provinces, London and Lancashire, was it fairly
established, until its overthrow by the Eestoration.1
THE LEADING MEMBERS.
Among the 121 divines of the Assembly there was a goodly por-
tion of worthy and distinguished men who had suffered privation and
exile under the misgovernment of Laud, who jeopardized their livings
by accepting the appointment, notwithstanding the threats of the king,
and who had the courage, after the Eestoration, to sacrifice all earthly
comforts to their conscientious convictions. Not a few of them com-
bined rare learning, eloquence, and piety in beautiful harmony. ' The
Westminster divines,5 says Dr. Stoughton, c had learning — Scriptural,
patristic, scholastic, and modern — enough and to spare : all solid, sub-
stantial, and ready for use. Moreover, in the perception and advocacy
of what is most characteristic and fundamental in the gospel of Jesus
Christ they were as a body considerably in advance of some who
could put in a claim to equal and perhaps higher scholarship.'2
It is sufficient for our purpose to mention the most eminent of the
Westminster divines.3
WILLIAM TWISSE, D.D. (Oxon.), Rector of Newbury, Prolocutor or
Moderator by appointment of Parliament till his death (July, 1646).
He was of German descent, about sixty-nine years of age, noted as a
high Calvinist of the supralapsarian school, full of learning and subtle
speculative genius, but l merely bookish,3 as Baillie says, and poorly
1 See M'Crie, pp. 189 sqq.
a Church of the Civil Wars, p. 453.
3 For a full list of members, with biographical notices, the reader is referred to D. Masson,
Life of John Milton, Vol. II. pp. 516-524, where they are arranged in alphabetical order;
and to Dr. Mitchell, in his Introduction to the Minutes, pp. Ixxxi.-lxxxiv., where they are
given in the order of the ordinance of Parliament calling the Assembly (dated June 12, 1643),
with some twenty members subsequently added to fill vacancies. Meek gives various lists
in his edition of Gillespie's Notes. Neal's list has several errors. Much information on the
leading members may be gathered from Baillie's Journals, Fuller's Church History and
Worthies of England, Anthony Wood's Athena et Fasti Oxonienses, Neal's History of the
Puritans, Stoughton's historical works, and Masson's Milton. Reid gives biographical sketches
of the Westminster divines in alphabetical order, with lists of their works.
§ 93. THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY.
fitted to guide a delicate assembly. Bishop Hall calls him ' a man so
eminent in school-divinity that the Jesuits shrunk under his strength.'
Thomas Fuller says : l ' His plain preaching was good, solid disputing
better, pious living best of all good.5
OHABLES HERLE (d. 1659), an Oxford scholar, and Kector of Winwick
in Lancashire, succeeded Twisse as Prolocutor. He was a moderate
Presbyterian, and, in the language of Fuller, c so much Christian,
scholar, and gentleman that he could unite in affection with those who
were disjoined in judgment from him.' He wrote against independ-
ency, but remarked in the Preface : c The difference between us is not
so great ; at most it does but ruffle a little the fringe, not any way rend
the garment of Christ.' 8
JOHN WHITE (Oxon., d. 1648) and Dr. CORNELIUS BURGESS (Oxon., d.
1665), the two Assessors, enjoyed general esteem. White was sur-
named c the patriarch of Dorchester,' but he ' would willingly contribute
his shot of facetiousness on any just occasion' (Fuller). He was the
great-grandfather of the Wesleys on the maternal side. Burgess was
' very active and sharp,' bold and fearless, an eminent debater and
valiant defender of Presbyterianism and royalty.
Dr. ARROWSMITH, head of St. John's College, Cambridge, < a man
with a glass eye,' having lost one by an arrow-shot, a f learned divine '
and ' elegant Latinist,' and long remembered in Cambridge for his
c sweet and admirable temper,' and Dr. TUOKNEY (d. 1670), Vice-Chan-
cellor of the University, an inspiring teacher and bountiful friend of
the poor, must be mentioned together as the chief composers of the
Larger and Shorter Catechisms. They were both friends of the broad-
minded Whichcote, who calls Arrowsmith ' the companion of his special
thought.'3 Dr. Tuckney, when requested by some members of Parlia-
ment to pay special regard to piety in his elections in Cambridge, made
1 Worthies of England, Vol. I. p. 93. Dr. Owen, though he wrote against him, called him
* the veteran leader, so well trained in the scholastic field ; this great man ; the very learned
and illustrious Twisse.7 M'Crie descrihes him as 'a venerable man, verging on seventy
years of age, with a long, pale countenance, an imposing beard, lofty brow, and meditative
eye ; the whole contour indicating a life spent in severe and painful study ' (Annals of the
English Presbytery, p. 14:5). The last words of Twisse were, * Now at length I shall have
leisure to follow my studies to all eternity.7
a * The presence of such a man in the chair is sufficient to redeem the Assembly from the
charge of illiberality or vulgar fanaticism.7 — M*Crie, p. 151.
3 Tulloch, Rat. TheoL in England,Vo\. II. (the Cambridge Platonists), pp. 56 sq.
742 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
the sensible reply : ' No man has a greater respect than I have for the
truly godly ; but I am determined to choose none but scholars. They
may deceive me in their godliness — they can not in their scholarship.3
He is said to be the author of the exposition of the Ten Command-
ments in the Larger Catechism.
EDMUND CALAMY, B.D. (Cantab.), one of the four representatives of
the London clergy, was a very popular preacher and a leader in the
Presbyterian party. ' He was the first openly to avow and defend the
Presbyterian government before a committee of Parliament ; and
though tempted afterwards with a bishopric, he continued stanch to his
principles to his dying day.' l He died soon after the great fire in Lon-
don (1666). His grandson, of the same name, was still more celebrated.
JOSEPH CARYL, M.A. (Oxon., 1602-1673), was a moderate Independ-
ent, a distinguished preacher, and ' a man of great learning, piety, and
modesty5 (Neal). He became afterwards one of Cromwell's Triers,
was ejected in 1662, and lived privately, preaching to his congregation
as the times would permit. He is chiefly known as the indefatigable
author of a commentary on Job, in twelve volumes, 4to (Lond. 1648-
1666), which is an excellent school of its chief topic, the virtue of
patience.2
THOMAS COLEMAN (Oxon.) was called < Eabbi Coleman ' for his pro-
found Hebrew learning. Baillie describes him as half-scholar and
half-fool, and of small estimation. He died during the heat of the
Erastian debate (1647).
THOMAS GATAKEB, B.D. (Cantab., d. 1654, aet. eighty), a devourer of
books, and equally esteemed for learning, piety, and sound doctrine. He
refused various offers of preferment.
THOMAS GOODWIN, D.D. (Cantab., d. 1680, aet. eighty), one of the two
6 patriarchs of English Independency,' Philip Nye being the other.
He was Vicar of Trinity Church, Cambridge, relinquished his prefer-
ments in 1634, was pastor of a congregation of English exiles at Arn-
heim, Holland, then in London,3 and afterwards President of Magdalen
1 M'Crie, p. 155.
2 Another edition in two large folio vols. was published in 1676 sq. Darling calls this ex-
position *a most elaborate, learned, judicious, and pious work.'
3 He founded a Congregational church in London in 1 640, which continues to this day,
and has recently (under the pastorate of Dr. Joseph Parker) erected the City Temple, with
i memorial tablet to Goodwin in the vestibule.
§ 93. THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY. 743
College, in Oxford, till the Restoration, when he resigned. He was the
favorite minister of Cromwell, eloquent in the pulpit, orthodox in doc-
trine, and exemplary in life, but ' tinctured with a shade of gloom and
austerity ' (M'Crie). < Though less celebrated than Owen, his great at-
tainments in scholarship and the range and variety of his thoughts as-
tonish us when we read his writings, showing how familiar he was with
all forms of theological speculation, ancient and modern ' (Stoughton).1
Dr. JOSHUA HOYLB (Oxon., d. 1654), Divinity Professor in Dublin,
afterwards Master of University College, Oxford, was the only Irish
divine of the Assembly, 'a master of the Greek and Latin fathers,1
who ' reigned both in the chair and in the pulpit.'
JOHN LIGHTFOOT, D.D. (Cantab.), the greatest rabbinical scholar of
his age, whose HOTOB Hebraicce &t Talmud-ices are still familiarly
quoted in illustration of the New Testament. His Journal is one of
the chief sources for the history of the Assembly, especially for ex-
egetical and antiquarian aspects of the Erastian controversy. In 1649
lie became Master of Catharine Hall, Cambridge, and retained his post
till he died, 1675, aged seventy-three.
STEPHEN MARSHALL, B.D. (Cantab.), Lecturer at St. Margaret's, West-
minster, was ' the best preacher in England ' (Baillie), a fearless leader
in the political strife, a great favorite in the Assembly, ' their trumpet,
by whom they sounded their solemn fasts ' (Fuller). One of his roy-
alist enemies called him c the Geneva bull, a factious and rebellious
divine.7 He was buried in Westminster Abbey, 1655, but disinterred
with the other Puritans after the Restoration.
PHILIP NYE (Oxon., d. 1672), minister of Kimbolton, who had been
in exile with his friend Goodwin, took a leading part, as a Commissioner
of Parliament, in soliciting the assistance of the Scots, and securing
subscription to the Covenant; but he conceived a dislike to their
Church polity and gave them a world of trouble. He kept them for
three weeks debating on the superior propriety, as he contended, of
having the elements handed to the communicants in their own seats
instead of calling them out to the table. He was a stanch Independ-
1 His austerity gave rise to the story related by Addison, in the Spectator, that Dr.
Goodwin, ' with half-a-dozen night-caps on his head and religious horror in his countenance,1
overawed and terrified an applicant for examination in Oxford by asking him in a sepulchral
voice, 'Are you prepared for death?' His works were published in London, 1681-1704, in
5 vols.
VOL. I.— B B B
THE CftEEDS Otf CHRISTENDOM.
ent, a keen debater, and a < great politician, of uncommon depth, and
seldom if ever outreached ' (Neal). He was one of the Triers under
Cromwell, and the leader of the Congregational Savoy Conference,
After the Restoration he declined tempting offers, and preached pri-
vately to a congregation of Dissenters till he died, seventy-six years of
age.
HERBERT PALMER, B.D. (Cantab.), Vicar of Ashwell, afterwards Mas-
ter of Queen's College, Cambridge, was a little man with a childlike
look, but very graceful and accomplished, a fluent orator in French as
well as English, and a model pastor. He spent his fortune in works of
charity, and his delicate frame in the cure of souls. He had scruples
about the divine right of ruling elders, but became a convert to Pres-
byterianism. He is the real author of the ' Christian Paradoxes/ which
have so long been attributed to Lord Bacon.1
Dr. EDWARD KETOOLDS (Oxon., d. 1676), * the pride and glory of the
Presbyterian party ' (Wood), was very learned, eloquent, cautious, but
lacking backbone. He accepted from Charles II. the bishopric of
Norwich (Jan., 1660), owing, it was said, to the influence of 'a covet-
ous and politic consort ' (Wood) ; but ' he carried the wounds of the
Church in his heart and in his bowels to the grave with him.'
Sir FRANCIS Ecus (or Eowse, b. 1579, d. 1659), c an old, most honest1
member of Parliament, afterwards a member of Cromwell's Privy
Council, was one of the twenty Commoners who were deputed to the
Assembly. He innocently acquired an immortal fame by his literal
versification of the Psalms, which was first printed in 1643, then re-
vised, and is used to this day in Scotland and in many Presbyterian con-
gregations in America in preference to all other versions and hymns.2
LAZARUS SEAMAN, B.D. (Cantab., 1667), one of the four representa-
tives of the London clergy, a very active member and reputed as an
Orientalist, who always carried with him a small Hebrew Bible without
points. He is described as c an invincible disputant ' and ' a person of
most deep, piercing, and eagle-eyed judgment in all points of contro-
versial divinity, in which he had few equals, if any superiors.' He
1 This fact has recently heen discovered by Rev. A. B. Grosart (1864). See Masson,
Vol. II. p. 520.
* See Baillie, Vol. II. p. 120 ; Vol. III. pp. 532 sqq. ; and the Minutes of the Westminster
Assembly, pp. 131, 163,4=18.
§ 93. THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY. 745
became Master of Peterhouse, Cambridge, but was ejected after the
Restoration.
JOHN SELDEN (1584-1654:), one of the lay assessors, and a scholar and
wit of European reputation.1 His scholarship was almost universal,
but lay chiefly in languages, law, and antiquities (hence ' antiquariorum
coryphczus '). For a long time he took an active part in the debates,
and often perplexed the divines by raising scruples. He liked to cor-
rect their ' little English pocket Bibles ' from the Greek and Hebrew.
Not especially fond of the flesh of the Scriptures, he cast the * bones '
at them c to break their teeth therewith ' (Fuller). He was an Erastian
and a clergy-hater, but on his death-bed he declared that 'out of the
numberless volumes he had read, nothing stuck so close to his heart, or
gave him such solid satisfaction, as the single passage of Paul, <The
grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men.'
BIOHARD VINES, Master of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge (d. 1656), ' an
excellent preacher and very powerful in debate, and much respected
on all accounts ' (Masson).
THOMAS YOUNG, Master of Jesus College, Cambridge, a Scotchman
by birth, Milton's preceptor, and the chief of the five c Srnectymnuans.'
THE SCOTCH COMMISSIONERS.
After the adoption of the international League and Covenant, Scot-
land sent five clerical and three lay commissioners who admirably
represented their Church and country. They formed a group by them-
selves at the right hand of the Prolocutor. They were the only dele-
gates who were elected by proper ecclesiastical authority, viz., the
General Assembly of their Church (Aug. 19, 1643), at the express re-
quest of the English, Parliament; they declined being considered
members in the ordinary sense, but they were allowed by warrant of
Parliament to be present and to debate, and practically they exerted
an influence disproportionate to their number. They arrived in Lon-
don in September, fresh from the battle c with lordly bishops, popish
ceremonies, and royal mandates,5 and full of the 'perfervidum ingeni-
um Scotorum?
ALEXANDER HENDERSON, Eector of the University of Edinburgh since
1 Opera omnia, ed. Dav. Wilkins, London, 1726, 3 vols. in folio.
746 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
164:0, sixty years of age, ranks next to John Knox and Andrew Melville
in the history of Scotch Presbyterianism, and was the author of the
' Sojemn League and Covenant,' which linked the Scottish and English
nations in a civil and religious alliance for the Reformed religion and
civil liberty. Being unmarried, he gave himself entirely to the Assem-
bly from Aug., 1643, to Aug., 1646. He has heretofore been too much
ignored. 'My researches,5 says Masson,1 'have more and more con-
vinced me that he was, all in all, one of the ablest and best men of his
age in Britain, and the greatest, the wisest, and most liberal of the
Scottish Presbyterians. They all had to consult him; in every strait
and conflict he had to be appealed to, and came in at the last as the
man of supereminent composure, comprehensiveness, and breadth of
brow. Although the Scottish Presbyterian rule was that no church-
man should have authority in State affairs, it had to be practically
waived in his case ; he was a cabinet minister without office.5
ROBERT BAILLIE (b. 1599, d. 1662), Professor of Divinity arid Prin-
cipal of the University of Glasgow, did not speak much, but was a
regular attendant for fully three years, a shrewd observer, and has
been called the Boswell of the Assembly and c the pleasantest of letter
gossips.' His ' Letters and Journals' (not properly edited until 1842) are
* among the most graphic books of contemporary memoir to be found
in any language. His faculty of narration in his pithy native Scotch
is nothing short of genius. Whenever we have an account from Baillie
of any thing he saw or was present at, it is worth all accounts put to-
gether for accuracy and vividness; so in his accounts of Stafford's
trial, and so in his account of his first impressions of the Westminster
Assembly5 (Masson).
GEORGE GILLESPIE, minister of Edinburgh (d. 1648), was only thirty-
one years of age when he entered the Assembly, the youngest, and yet
one of the brightest stars, c the prince of disputants, who with the fire
of youth had the wisdom of age.' He first attracted public attention
in his twenty-fourth year by ' A Dispute against the English-Popish
Ceremonies obtruded upon the Church of Scotland' (1637), which
helped the revolt against Laud's innovations. He took a leading part
in the debates of the Assembly against Erastianism and Independency.
4V6L III. p. IS.
$ 93. THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY.
According to Scotch tradition he once made even Selden reel and say,
6 That young man, by his single speech, has swept away the labors of
ten years of my life.' This is probably a patriotic exaggeration. The
excessive ardor and activity of his mind wore out his frame, and he re-
turned from the Assembly to die in his native land.
SAMUEL RUTHEEFORD (1600-1661), Professor of Divinity and Princi-
pal of St. Mary's College in St. Andrews, was one of the most fervid and
popular preachers in Scotland, and highly esteemed for his learning and
piety. 'The characteristics of his mind were clearness of intellect, warmth
and earnestness of affection, and loftiness and spirituality of devotion-
al feeling.' His book, ' Lex Rex,' is considered one of the best exposi-
tions of the principles of civil and religious liberty ; and his glowing
letters of comfort from his prison in Aberdeen (which he called * Christ's
Palace') show him to be 'the true saint and martyr of the Covenant'
Rev. Robert Douglas never sat. Among the lay commissioners, John
Lord Maitland (afterwards Earl of Lauderdale) distinguished himself
first by his zeal for the Scotch Covenanters, and afterwards by his
apostasy and cruelty against them. Sir Archibald Johnstone, of "War-
ristone, was from 1637 a leader among the Scotch Covenanters, a great
lawyer, and a devout Christian, who, as Bishop Burnethis nephew, nar-
rates, often prayed in his family two hours at a time with unexhausted
copiousness. The Marquis of Argyle also, who afterwards suffered
death for his loyalty to the Scotch Kirk, sat for some time as an elder
in the Assembly.
OPENING OF THE ASSEMBLY.
The Assembly was opened on Saturday, July 1, 1643, in the grand
national Abbey of Westminster, in the presence of both Houses of
Parliament and a large congregation, by a sermon of Dr. Twisse on
John xiv. 18 : ' I will not leave you comfortless ; I will come unto
you ' — a text which was deemed c pertinent to these times of sorrow,
anguish, and misery, to raise up the drooping spirits of the people of
God who lie tinder the pressure of Popish wars and combustions.'1
After service the members of the Assembly, * three score and nine'3
* From the Parliamentarian newspaper No. 25, for July 3-10, 1643, quoted by Mitchel,
p. xi. Lightfoot reports in his Journal (p. 3) that ca great congregation' was present be-
sides the members of the Assembly and of Parliament.
a This is about the average attendance of the Lower House of the Convocation of Canter-
bury-— Stanley, Memorials of Westminster Albey, p. 507.
748 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
(twenty-nine more than the required quorum), repaired for organiza-
tion to the Chapel of Henry VII., that ' most gorgeous of sepulchres,'
where the Upper House of Convocation used to meet. The mediaeval
architecture formed a striking contrast to the Puritan simplicity of
worship and dress. The divines appeared in black coats or cloaks,
skull-caps, and Geneva bands in imitation of the foreign Protestants,1
with the exception of a few Koyalists and Episcopalians, who in their
canonical gowns seemed ' the only non-Conformists.3 2 Add to this ap-
parel their solemn looks, the peaked beards and mustaches, and the
broad double ruff around the neck, and we have a spectacle of a synod
differing as much from a modern Presbyterian Assembly as from an
Episcopal Convocation or a Roman Catholic Council.3
Every member had to take the following vow (which was read in
the Assembly every Monday morning) :
' I do seriously promise and vow, in the presence of almighty God,
that in this Assembly, whereof I arn a member, I will maintain nothing
in point of doctrine but what I believe to be most agreeable to the
Word of God ; nor in point of discipline, but what may make most
for God's glory and the peace and good of his Church.'
THE ASSEMBLY IN THE JERUSALEM CHAMBER.
For several weeks the meetings were held in the Chapel of Henry
VII. But when extreme cold weather set in at the close of Sep-
tember, the Assembly repaired to the ' Jerusalem Chamber,' in the
Deanery of Westminster.4 * What place more proper for the building
of Sion,' asks Fuller, 'than the Chamber of Jerusalem^ the fairest of
the Dean's lodgings, where King Henry IY. died, and where these
divines did daily meet together?'5
This large and venerable hall, furnished with a long table and
chairs, and ornamented with tapestry (pictures of the Circumcision, the
J Neal and Stoughton. a Fuller.
3 M'Crie and Mitchell compare it to a synod of Huguenots as pictured on the title-page of
the first volume of Quick's Synodicon. But there the Frenchmen wear broad-brimmed hats.
* The origin of the name is uncertain. Some derive it from the tapestries or pictures of
Jerusalem on the wall. Dr. Stoughton, who is well informed in English history and archaeology,
informs me (by letter of May 4, 1876) that it probably arose 'from the fact of its adjoining
the sanctuary, the place of peace;' and he quotes a passage from the account of King John's
death : ' Nee providet quod est Roma ecclesia Jerusalem dicta, id est, visio pads ; quia qui-
cunque illnc. confugerit, cuiuscunque criminis obw'ius. subsidium invenit' (William of Malmes-
bury. De, gestis AngL Lib. II. p. 67). 5 Church Hist. Vol. VI. p. 253.
§ 93. THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY.
Adoration of the Magi, and the Passage through the Wilderness), was
originally the withdrawing-room of the abbot, and has become famous
in romance and history as the cradle of many memorable schemes and
events from the Reformation down to the present time.
There, before the fire of the hearth — then a rare luxury in England
— King Henry 1V.3 who intended to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem,
died of a hideous leprosy (March 20} 1413). When informed of the
name of the chamber, he exclaimed,
'Laud be to God! even there my life must end.
It hath been prophesied to me many years
I would not die but in Jerusalem j
Which vainly I supposed the Holy Land.
But bear me to that chamber; there I'll lie:
In that Jerusalem shall Harry die.'1
There Sir Thomas More was confined (1534), and urged by the
abbot to acknowledge the king's ecclesiastical supremacy ; and there
probably he wrote his appeal to a general council which never met,
but may yet meet at some future day.
There, under the genial warmth of the fire which had attracted the
dying king, the grave Puritan Assembly prepared its standards of doc-
trine, worship, and discipline, to be disowned by England, but honored
by Scotland and America.
There the most distinguished Biblical scholars of the Church of Eng-
land, in fraternal co-operation with scholars of Dissenting denomina-
tions, both nobly forgetting old feuds and jealousies, are now engaged
in the truly catholic and peaceful work of revising the common version
of the Bible for the general benefit of English-speaking Christendom.2
i Shakspere, Second Part of King Henry IV., act iv. sc. 4.
* For a fuller description of the Jerusalem Chamber, see Dean Stanley's Memorials of
Westminster Abbey, pp. 417 sqq. I may be permitted to add from personal experience an
interesting recent incident in the history of that chamber. At the kind invitation of the
Dean of Westminster, the delegates to the International Council of Presbyterian Churches,
then meeting in London for the formation of a Presbyterian Alliance, repaired to the
Jerusalem Chamber on Thursday afternoon, July 22, 1875, and, standing around the long
table, were instructed and entertained by the Dean, who, modestly taking the Moderator »
chair, 'gave them a graphic historical description of the chamber, interspersed with humor-
ous remarks and extracts from Baillie. He dwelt mainly on the Westminster Assembly,
promising, in his broad-Church liberality, at some future time to honor that Assembly by *
picture on the northern wall. Dr. McCosh, as Moderator of the Presbyterian Council, pro-
posed a vote of thanks for the courtesy and kindness of the Dean, which was, of course, unani-
mously and heartily given. The writer of this expressed the hope that the Jerusalem Ouunber
may yet serve a still nobler purpose than any in the past, namely, the reunion of Christen-
750 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM,
BAILLIB'S DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSEMBLY.
The Assembly in actual session in this famous locality, and its order
of business, can not be better described than in the graphic language
of one of the Scotch Commissioners :
'The like of that Assembly,' says Professor Baillie,1 'I did never see, and, as we hear
say, the like was never in England, nor any where is shortly like to be. They did sit in
Henry the Seventh's Chapel, in the place of the Convocation ; but since the weather grew
cold, they did go to Jerusalem Chamber, a fair room in the Abbey of Westminster, about the
bounds of the College forehall, but wider. At the one end nearest the door and on both sides
are stages of seats as in the new Assembly-House at Edinburgh, but not so high, for there
will be room but for five or six score. At the upmost end there is one chair set on a frame, a
foot from the earth, for the Mr. Prolocutor Dr. Twisse. Before it, on the ground, stand two
chairs for the two Mr. Assessors, Dr. Burgess and Mr. White. Before these two chairs, through
the length of the room, stands a table, at which sit the two scribes, Mr. Byfield and Dr.
Roborough. The house is all well hung and has a good fire, which are some dainties at
London. Foranent [in front of] the table, upon the Prolocutor's right hand, there are three
or four ranks of forms. On the lowest we five do sit. Upon the other, at our backs, the
members of Parliament deputed to the Assembly. On the forms foranent us, on the Pro-
locutor's left hand, going from the upper end of the house to the chimney, and at the other
end of the house, and backside of the table, till it comes about to our seats, are four or five
stages of forms, whereupon their divines sit as they please, albeit commonly they keep
the same place. From the chimney to the door there are no seats, but a void for passage.
The Lords of Parliament use to sit on chairs in that void, about the fire. We meet every
iay of the week but Saturday. We sit commonly from nine to one or two [in the] after-
noon. The Prolocutor at the beginning and end has a short prayer. The man, as the world
knows, is very learned in the questions he has studied, and very good, beloved by all, and
highly esteemed ; but merely bookish, and not much, as it seems, acquainted with conceived
prayer, [and] among the unfittest of all the company for any action ; so after the prayer
he sits mute. It was the canny conveyance of those who guide most matters for their own
interest to plant such a man of purpose in the chair. One of the Assessors, our good friend
Mr. White, has keepedin of the gout since our coming; the other, Dr. Burgess, a very active
and sharp man, supplies, so far as is decent, the Prolocutor's place.
'Ordinarily there will be present above threescore of their divines. These are divided
into three committees, in one whereof every man is a member ; no man is excluded who
pleases to come to any of the three. Every committee, as the Parliament gives order in
writing to take any purpose into consideration, takes a portion, and in their afternoon meet-
ing prepares matters for the Assembly, sets down their mind in distinct propositions, [and]
backs their propositions with texts of Scripture. After the prayer, Mr. Byfield, the scribe,
reads the proposition and Scriptures, whereupon the Assembly debates in a most grave and
orderly way. No man is called up to speak; but who stands up of his own accord, he speaks
so long as he will without interruption. If two or three stand up at once, then the divines
dom on the basis of God's revealed truth in the Bible ; and he alluded to the fact that the
Dean had recently (in the « Contemporary Eeview,' and in an address at Saint Andrews) paid
a high compliment to the Westminster Confession by declaring its first chapter, on the Holy
Scriptures, to be one of the best, if not the very best symbolical statement ever made.
1 In a letter to his cousin, William Spang, dated London, Dec. 7, 1643. See Letters and
Journals, Vol. II. pp. 1 07-1 09. I have retained the Scotch words, but modernized the spelling.
Extracts from this letter are quoted by Keal, Hetherington, Stanley, Stoughton, Mitchell.
§ 93. THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY. 751
confusedly call on his name whom they desire to hear first : on whom the loudest and maniest
[most] voices call, he speaks. No man speaks to any but to the Prolocutor. They harangue
long and very learnedly. 1 hey study the questions well beforehand, and prepare their speech-
es ; but withal the men are exceeding prompt and well-spoken. I do marvel at the very accu-
rate and extemporal replies that many of them usually do make. When, upon every propo-
sition by itself, and on every text of Scripture that is brought to confirm it, every man who
will has said his whole mind, and the replies, and duplies, and triplies are heard, then the
most part calls "To the question." Byfield, the scribe, rises from the table and comes to the
Prolocutor's chair, who, from the scribe's book, reads the proposition, and says, '* As many as
are of opinion that the question is well stated in the proposition, let them say I ;" when I
is heard, he says, " As many as think otherwise, say No." If the difference of I's and No's be
clear, as usually it is, then the question is ordered by the scribes, and they go on to debate
the first Scripture alleged for proof of the proposition. If the sound of I and No be near
equal, then says the Prolocutor, "As many as say I, stand up ;" while they stand, the scribe
and others number them in their mind; when they sit down the No's are bidden to stand, and
they likewise are numbered. This way is clear enough, and saves a great deal of time, which
we spend in reading our catalogue. When a question is once ordered, there is no more
debate of that matter ; but if a man will vaige, J he is quickly taken up by Mr. Assessor, or
many others, confusedly crying, "Speak to order, to order." No man contradicts another
expressly by name, but most discreetly speaks to the Prolocutor, and at most holds on the
general — The reverend brother, who lately or last spoke, on this hand, on that side, above,
or below.
* I thought meet once for all to give you a taste of the outward form of their Assembly.
They follow the way of their Parliament. Much of their way is good, and worthy of our
imitation : only their longsomeness is woeful at this time, when their Church and Kingdom
lies under a most lamentable anarchy and confusion. They see the hurt of their length, but
can not get it helped ; for being to establish a new Platform of worship and discipline to
their nation for all time to come, they think they can not be answerable if solidly and at
leisure they do not examine every point thereof.'
DEVOTIONAL EXEEOISES.
With theological discussion the Assembly combined devotional ex-
ercises, and observed with Parliament regular and occasional fasts
which are characteristic of the Puritan piety of that age. At the joint
meeting of the Parliament and the Assembly in St. Margaret's Church,
for the signing of the Covenant (Monday, Sept. 25, 1643), Mr. White
' prayed near upon an hour,' Mr. Nye ' made an exhortation of anothet
hour long,' Mr. Henderson < did the like ;' then there was the reading
of the Covenant, a prayer by Dr.Tonge, c another psalm by Mr. Wil-
son,' and a concluding prayer, when they c adjourned till Thursday
morning, because of the fast.32
Baillie describes the fast observed May 17, 1644, at the request of
General Essex before his march into the field, as ' the sweetest day ' he
saw in England, although it lasted eight hours, from nine to five, without
1 Probably * wander' (from * vague1). a laghtfoot, Journal, p. 1$.
752 THE CEEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
interruption. c After Dr. Twisse,' lie writes, ' had begun with a brief
prayer, Mr. Marshall prayed large two hours, most divinely, confessing
the sins of the members of the Assembly in a wonderfully pathetic and
prudent way. After, Mr. Arrowsmith preached one hour ; then a psalm ;
thereafter, Mr. Yines prayed near two hours, and Mr. Palmer preached
one hour, and Mr. Seaman prayed near two hours ; then a psalm. After,
Mr. Henderson brought them to a short, sweet conference of the heart
confessed in the Assembly, and other seen faults1 to be remedied, and
the convenience to preach against sects, especially Anabaptists and
Antinomians. Dr. Twisse closed with a short prayer and blessing.
God was so evidently in all this exercise that we expect certainly a
blessing both in our matter of the Assembly and whole kingdom.'2
"We can not read such accounts without amazement at the devotional
fervor and endurance of the Puritan divines. And yet, if we consider
the length of their prayers and sermons, their austerity in society, dress
and manner, their peculiar phraseology and cant, their aversion to the
fine arts and public amusements, however innocent, we need not be
surprised at the popular rebound to the opposite extreme under the
frivolous and licentious Charles II. * All that was beautiful in Church
music, architecture, or ornament, and in personal elegance and refine-
ment, was rigidly proscribed. Even poetry was at a discount ; Milton
himself , in his lifetime, in more senses than one, " sung darkling ;" and
the literary style of the day, unlike either that of the foregoing or the
subsequent age, was harsh, stiff, and void of elegance. Even the typog-
raphy of the period is peculiarly grim and unseemly.33
It should not be forgotten, however, that there are times when
aesthetics must give way to more important matters, and that radical
extremes are unavoidable in critical periods. The Catholic Church
itself, in the first three centuries, passed through the gloom of the cata-
combs, and, in its ascetic abhorrence of heathen ait and beauty, strange-
ly misconceived even our blessed Lord's personal appearance as homely
and repulsive in the days of his humiliation. Tertullian, in his way,
went farther than the Puritans.
1 Probably a misprint for * heart-confessed and other seen faults in the Assembly.'
8 Letters and Journals, Vol. II. pp. 1 84 sq.
3M*Crie, Annals of English Presb. p. 173. The last remark applies alio tp tte early
*4itionfi of the Westminster standards and controversial pamphlets.
§ 94. THE WESTMINSTER CONFEbSIOX 753
DURATION AND CLOSE.
The Assembly occupied about five years and six months for the
completion of its proper work — the standards of doctrine, worship, and
discipline— and held no less than 1163 regular sessions from July 1,
1643, till February 22, 1649, when it ought to have adjourned sine die.
It met every day, except Saturday and Sunday, from nine o'clock till
one or two— the afternoons being left to committees. After Nov. 9,
1647, we find no mention of the Scotch Commissioners. But the As-
sembly continued to drag out a shadowy existence, with scanty and
irregular attendance, as a standing committee for the examination and
ordination of candidates for the ministry, meeting every Thursday,1 till
March 25, 1652, when it informally broke up before the dissolution of
the 'Kurnp' Parliament by Oliver Cromwell (April 19, 1653). <It
dwindled away by degrees, though never legally dissolved/ says Fuller.
It vanished with the Long Parliament which gave it birth.
§ 94. THE WESTMINSTEB CONFESSION.
I. STANDABD EDITIONS.
I. English.
The editio princeps, without Scripture texts, was printed, but not published, Dec. 7, 1646, at Loadon,
under the title, * The Humble \ Advice \ of the \ Assembly \ of \ Divines, | Now by authority of Parlia-
ment 1 sitting at Westminster, \ concerning \ a Confession of Faith, \ presented by them lately to both Souses
| of Parliament. | . . . London. Printed for the Company of Stationers.7 1647.
A second edition (of 600 copies) was printed In London, under the same title, 'with the Quotations
and Texts of Scripture annexed,' by order of Parliament, dated April 29, 164T.
The first Edinburgh ed. is a reprint of the second London ed. in somewhat different type. Only 300
copies were printed, Aug. 9, 164T, for the use of the General Assembly. See fac-simile in Vol. in. p. 593.
The typography and paper of these early editions are very poor. After the adoption, innumerable
editions appeared under the proper title, ( Confession of Faith.' The earliest smaU ed. of Edirib. ap-
peared 1650 ; the earliest small ed. in Lond., 1648 or 1649. See Minutes, p. 418, note 4.
The edition which was adopted by the English Parliament, with some changes (similar to those
afterwards made in the Savoy Declaration), bears a different title, viz.: ARTICLES ] of\ Christian Re-
ligion, | Approved and Passed by both Houses \ of PARLIAMENT, | After Advice had faith the Assembly \
of \ DIVINES | by \ Authority of Parliament sitting at \ Westminster. \ London : \ . . . June 27, 1648.
Copies of the earliest and other rare editions I found and compared in the British Museum, in the
Libraries of Edinburgh, the Free Church College and the Advocates' Libraries, and that of Union Theol.
Seminary in New York. The texts vary but slightly. I used also a London ed. of 1668 (pp. 108), which
is a little superior in typography, and still bears the title Humble Advice, etc. It has the Scripture
proofs printed out in full.
Prof. Mitchell proposes to publish, with other documents, 'a careful collation of the earlier editions
of the Confession ' (Minutes, p. 546).
A very good edition of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, together with the Cov-
enants (National and Solemn League), the acts of Parliament and the General Assembly relative to and
approving of the same, was printed by authority at Edinburgh (University Press), 1855 (pp. 561).
The American editions differ from the English and Scotch in Chaps. XXIII. and XXXI., and in the
close of XX. The changes are given in Vol. IIL pp. 600 sqq.
1 The sessions held after Feb. 22, 1649 (1648), are not numbered. The last regular meet-
ings were likewise devoted merely to executive business. See Minutes, p. 539.
754: THE CBEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
2. Latin.
Confessio Fidei in Conventu theologorum authoritate Parliament Anglican* indicto elaborata; eidem
Parliament postmodum exMbita; quin et ab eodem, deinque ab Ecclesia Scoticana cognita et approbata;
unacum Catechismo duplici, majori, minorique; e sermone Anglicaiio summa cum fide in Latinum versa.
Cantabrigise, 1056 and 1659, email 8vo (229 pp.). Other eds., Edinb. 1670, 1694, 1708, 1711 ; Glasgow, 1660 ;
in the appendix to Niemeyer's Collectio Conf. 1840. See Vol. III. pp. 600 sqq. The translation is good,
but the translator is not named, nor could I ascertain his name from the librarians in Edinburgh and
London, not even from the learned Mr. David Laing and Dr. Mitchell. The initials below the preface
are * G. D.' (perhaps G. Dillingham, D.D., of Emanuel College, Cambridge ; others surmised G. Duport,
of Cambridge).
3. German.
A German translation appeared as early as 1643. A new one in BOCKEL'S Bekenntniss-Schriften der
evang. reform. Kirche, pp. 683 sqq. (under the title Das puritanische Glaubensbekenntniss). Another
version is published by the Presbyterian Board in Philadelphia.
HISTORICAL.
See Literature on Westminster Assembly, § 93.
Dr. Ausx. P. MITCHELL (Prof, of Ch. Hist, in St. Andrews) : The Westminster Confession of Faith: a
Contribution to the Study of Us Historical Relations and to the Defence of its Teaching. Edinb. 3d ed. 1867.
Comp. his valuable Introduction to the Minutes, 1S74.
ALEX. TAYLOR INNES : The Law of Creeds in Scotland. Edinburgh, 1867.
EXPLANATORY AND APOLOGETIC.
Truth's Victory over Error; or, an Abridgment of the chief Controversies in Religion, etc. [By DAVID
DIOKSON.] Edinb. (1649), 1684; Glasgow, 1725. A catechetical exposition of the Westin. Conf.
A Brief Sum of Christian Doctrine contained in Holy Scripture, and holden forth in the Confession of
Faith and Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, etc. [Drawn up by DAVID DIOKSON.] Edinb. 1693.
ROBEBT SHAW (Minister of the Free Church at Whitburn) : An Exposition of the Confession of Faith
of the Westminster Assembly of Divines. With an Introduction by W. M. Hetherington. Edinb. 1845.
ARCHIBALD ALEXANPKU HODGB, D.D. (Prof, of Theol. in Allegheny Seminary) : A Commentary on the
Confession of Faith. Philad. 1869 (Presbyt. Board).
CEITIOAL AND POLEMICAL.
W. PARKER: The late Assembly of Divines" Conf. of Faith Examined, wherein many of their Excesses
end Defects, of their Confusion* and Disorders, of their Errors and Contradictions, are presented. Lond. 1651 .
JAMKS STARK: The Westminster Confession of Faith critically Compared with the Holy Scripture and
found wanting. Lond. 1863. A candid but captious critique of all the chapters.
JOSEPH TATT.OR GormsiR: The Westminster Confession of Faith Examined on the Basis of the other
Protestant Confessions. Lond. 1868. Directed chiefly against Ch. XL, on Justification by Faith.
A. M. FAIRBAIBN : The Westminster Confession of Faith and Scotch Theology. An article in the « Contem-
porary Review,' answered by Prof. Mitchell in the Introduction to Minutes of the Westminster Assembly.
WILLIAM MARSHALL : The Principles of the Westminster Standards Persecuting. Edinb. 1873.
REVISION OF THE ENGLISH ARTICLES.
The Assembly was at first employed for ten weeks on a revision of
the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, being directed by
an order of Parliament (July 5, 1643) * to free and vindicate the doc-
trine of them from all aspersions and false interpretations.' The Pur-
itans regarded the doctrinal Articles as sound and orthodox in substance
and spirit, but capable of improvement in the line marked out by the
Lambeth Articles and the Irish Articles ; in other words, they desired
to make them more explicitly Calvinistic.
Fifteen of these Articles, including the most important doctrines,
were thus revised, and provided with Scripture proofs.1 Yery few
1 The revised Fifteen Articles have been reprinted from the copy as approved by Parliament,
in Hall's Harmony of Protestant Confessions; in Appendix No. VII. to Neal's History of the
Puritans ; in Stoughton, Church of the Commonwealth, Append, pp. 228 sqq.
§ 94. THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 755
changes were made. Art. L, on the Trinity, was left untouched. In
Art. II., on the Son of God, the word ' all ' before ' actual sins of men '
is missing, which, if not an oversight, was a misimprovement in the
interest of Oalvinistic particularism.1 In Art. III. the unhistorical in-
terpretation of Christ's descent into Hades, which makes it a mere
repetition of the preceding clause in the Creed, is put in. In Art. YL
the allusion to the Apocrypha is omitted. The remaining Articles are
retained with some verbal improvements, except Art. VIII. of the three
Creeds, which is omitted in almost all the printed copies. But in the
original copy which the Assembly sent to Parliament, Art. VIII. was
retained with a slight verbal change,2 and omitted in the copy which
Parliament sent to the King at the Isle of Wight. The Assembly cer-
tainly had no objection to the doctrine of the oecumenical creeds, and
teaches it in its own standards. And yet the omission of all allusion
to them in the Confession of Faith is so far characteristic as it reveals
a difference of stand-point. The Puritan Assembly was unwilling to
adopt any rule of faith except the Scripture explained by itself; while
the Episcopal Church was reformed on the basis of the Scripture as
interpreted by the ancient Church, or at all events with respectful
reference to primitive creeds and canons.
The work of revision was suspended by an order of Parliament, Oct.
12, 1643, requiring the Assembly to enter upon the work of Church
government, and then given up in consequence of an order c to frame
a Confession of Faith for the three kingdoms, according to the Solemn
League and Covenant.5 The framing of the Westminster Confession
is therefore due to Scotch influence and the adoption of the Solemn
League and Covenant.3
1 The 'air was in the original edition of 1563 and the edition of 1628, but is missing in
the edition of 1630 and other English editions, and also in the American Episcopal revision;
see Vol. III. p. 478.
a 'The three creeds that go under the name o/the Nicene Creed, Athanasius' Creed,7 etc.,
instead of * The three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, ' etc. Ussher and Vossius
had proved the post-Athanasian origin of the creed which bears his name. Lightfoot (Journal,
p. 10) notices, probably from an earlier stage of the debate, another change, viz. : 'for that
the matter of them [for they} may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.*
He adds that ' at last it was concluded that the Creeds should be printed at the end of the
Thirty-nine Articles.' Comp. Mitchell, in Minutes, p. 542.
3 See this important document and its history above, pp. 689 sqq. Marsden says (Later
Puritans, p. 90) : 'The taking of the Covenant in Scotland was perhaps the most solemn
scene in the history of nations. The forced imposition of it in England was an insult and a
756 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Tliis was a wise conclusion. The alteration or reconstruction of an
established creed (except in minor particulars) is in itself a difficult
and ungratef ul task, and more apt to produce confusion than harmony,
as is shown by the history of the Nicene Creed and the Augsburg
Confession.
PREPAEATION OF THE CONFESSION.
The first appointment of a Committee to prepare matter for a joint
Confession of Faith was made Aug. 20, 1644, and embraced, besides
the Commissioners of the Church of Scotland, the following English-
men : Dr. Gouge, Mr. Gataker, Mr. Arrowsmith, Dr. Temple, Mr. Bur-
roughs, Mr. Surges, Mr. Vines, Dr. Goodwin, and Dr. Hoyle. The
chairman, Dr. William Gouge, a graduate of Cambridge, was Minister
of Blackfriars, London (from 1608), and stood in high veneration among
the Puritans, there being ' scarce a lord or lady or citizen of quality
in or about the city that were piously inclined but they sought his
acquaintance.' * He died Dec. 12, 1653, seventy-nine years of age.
The Committee was enlarged Sept. 4, 1644, by adding Messrs. Pal-
mer, Newcomen, Herle, Eeynolds, Wilson, Tuckney, Smith, Young,
Ley, and Sedgwicke.2
This Committee, it seems, prepared the material and reported in the
434th session, May 12, 1645, when a smaller Committee was appointed
to digest the material into a formal draught. The members were taken
from the old Committee, with Dr. Gouge as chairman. The Scotch
Commissioners were to be again consulted.3 On July 7th, 164f , Dr.
Temple made a report of a part of the Confession touching the Holy
Scripture, which was read and debated.4 The following day, Reynolds,
Herle, and Newcomen, to whom were afterwards added Tuckney and
Whitaker, were appointed a Committee ' to take care of the wording
of the Confession, as it is voted in the Assembly from time to time, and
burlesque.' Puller refutes it at length from his English and Episcopal stand-point (Church
Hist. Vol. VI. pp. 259 sqq.). It certainly turned out to be a blunder in England, but it was
a sublime blunder for a noble end, and not without important results, among which is the
one mentioned in the text.
1 Masson, Vol. II. p. 518. Gouge's Commentary on Hebrews was republished, 1866, at
Edinburgh, in 3 vols., with a memoir, in which he is called ' the father of the London min-
isters and the oracle of his time* (p. xii.).
2 See excerpts from Vol. II. of the MS. Minutes, in Mitchell's ed. of Minutes (which begin
NOT. 18, 1644),p.lxxxvi.
3 Minutes, p. 91. * Ibid. p. 110.
§ 94. THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 757
report to the Assembly when they think fit there should be any altera-
tion in the words,' after first consulting f with the Scotch Commissioners
or any one of them.' 1 In the 470th session, July 16, 1645, the heads of
the Confession were distributed among three large committees to be
elaborated and prepared for more formal discussion.3 The chapters
were reported, read, and debated, section by section, and sometimes
word by word.
The sub-committees sat two days every week, and reported as they
progressed. On Sept. 25, 1646, the title was fixed (c The Humble Ad-
vice,' etc.) and the first nineteen chapters were sent tip to the House of
Commons at their request A few days afterwards (Oct. 1) a duplicate
was sent to the House of Lords.3 The House of Lords passed these
chapters, after a third reading, unanimously (Nov. 6). The House of
Commons delayed definite action till the whole was presented. In the
752d Session, Dec. 4, 1646, the Confession was completed and presented
to both Houses of Parliament in a copy transcribed with great pains
by Dr. Burgess, for which he received a vote of thanks from the As-
j o y
sembly.*
The Confession was thus prepared in two years and three months,
amid many interruptions by discussions on the Catechism and on dis-
cipline. No other symbolical book cost so much time and labor, ex-
cept the Tridentine and Vatican Decrees, and perhaps the Lutheran
Formula of Concord. Besides the chairman, Drs. Tuckney, Arrow-
smith, Eeynolds (afterwards bishop), Temple, Hoyle, Palmer, Eerie,
and the Scotch divines seem to have been the chief authors of the
work.
The Confession was first printed Dec., 1646, or Jan., 1647, for the
exclusive use of Parliament and the Assembly, without the Scripture
proofs. The House of Commons, not satisfied, expressly requested the
Assembly to send them the Scripture texts (April 22, 1647), which was
promptly done (April 29).5 Whereupon the House of Commons ordered
' Minutes, p. 110.
3 Ibid. pp. 290, 291 ; Journals of the H. of Commons, Vol. IV. p. 677 ; and the H. of
Lords, Vol. VIII. pp. 505, 588.
* Minutes, p. 308 ; Journals of the ff. of Commons, Vol. IV. p. 739 ; of the Lords, Vol. VIII.
p. 597.
* Journals of the House of Commons, Vol. V. p. 151 ; Minutes, p. 352. Baillie (in a letter
to Spa-tig, Jan. 20, 1647, Vol. III. p. 2) ascribes this request of Parliament; to the ' retarding
758 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
' that six hundred copies, and no more, of the Advice of the Assembly
of Divines concerning the Confession of Faith, with the quotations
and texts of Scripture annexed, presented to this House, and likewise
six hundred copies of the Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines
upon the Nine-and-thirty Articles of the Church of England, be forth-
with printed for the service of both Houses and of the Assembly of
Divines; and the printer is enjoined at his peril not to print more
than six hundred copies of each, or to divulge or publish any of them.51
At the same time a vote of thanks to the Assembly was passed c for
their great pains in these services.3 This second edition appeared
May, 1647, and contains the received and ecclesiastically authorized
text. It must not be confounded with the revised text of Parliament
THE ACTION OF PARLIAMENT.
The House of Commons began, May 19, 1647, the consideration of
the c Humble Advice,' chapter by chapter, resumed it in October, and
completed it March 22, 1648. It made some alterations in the govern-
mental chapters, and gave the document the title, * Articles of Chris-
tian Religion approved and passed by both Houses of Parliament, after
Advice had with the Assembly of Divines by authority of Parliament
sitting at Westminster.'2
The House of Lords agreed to all the alterations, excepting to that on
marriage, June 3, 1648. Whereupon the House of Commons, on the
20th of June, ordered c that the Articles of Christian Religion sent
from the Lords with some alterations, the which were this day read,
and upon the question agreed unto, be forthwith printed and published.'
The next day it was resolved c that the texts of Scripture be printed
with the Articles of Faith.'
A copy of the authorized edition of these Articles is preserved in
the British Museum. It differs from the Assembly's Confession by
the omission of the entire Oh. XXX. (on Church Censures) and Oh.
party, 'and as a change of tactics of the opponents, and remarks that the Assembly omitted
the Scripture proofs at first t only to eschew the offense of the House, whose practice hitherto
has been to enact nothing of religion on divine right or Scriptural ground, but upon their own
authority alone.'
1 Journals, Vol. V. p. 156, and Minutes, p. 354.
4 The original title, 'A Confession of Eaith,' was voted down by sixty-one to forty-one.
— Minutes, p. 415.
§ 94. THE WESTMINSTER CONCESSION, 759
XXXI. (on Synods and Councils), and parts of Ok XX. (§ 4) and Oh.
XXIY. (§§ 5, 6, and part of 4).
When, after Cromwell's death, the Long Parliament was restored
in 1659, it adopted the Confession with the exception of Ch. JCTTK,
and Oh. XXXI., and requested Dr. Reynolds, Mr. Calamy, and Mr*
Manton to superintend the publication (March 5, I860).1
The English Parliament thus twice indorsed the Westminster Con-
fession as to its doctrinal articles, but retained an Erastian control
over matters of discipline. With the restoration of the monarchy the
Confession shared the fate of Presbyterianism in England.
THE ACTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF SCOTLAND.
The Confession was at once brought to Scotland, and most favorably
received.2 The General Assembly at Edinburgh, Aug. 27, 1647, after
careful examination, adopted it in full as it came from the hands of
the Westminster divines, declaring it cto be most agreeable to the Word
of God, and in nothing contrary to the received doctrine, worship, dis-
cipline, and government of this Kirk,3 and thankfully acknowledging
the great mercy of the Lord, 'in that so excellent a Confession of
Faith is prepared, and thus far agreed upon in both kingdoms.' The
Scotch Parliament indorsed this action, Feb. 7, 1649.
Thus the Confession, as well as the two Catechisms, received the full
sanction of the highest ecclesiastical and civil authorities of Scotland.
But the royal sanction was not obtained till 1690, under William and
Mary.3
It is a very remarkable fact that this Confession failed in its native
land, and succeeded in foreign lands. The product of English Pur-
itans became the highest standard of doctrine for Scotch and American
Presbyterians, and supplanted the older Confession of their own Ee-
1 Journals of the House of Commons, Vol. VII. p. 862 ; Mitchell, in Minutes, p. 417. Mitch-
ell gives no information of copies of this edition.
9 Baillie brought a copy of the first edition, without proofs, in January (Letters, Vol. III.
p. 2) ; Gillespie probably a copy of the second ed., with proofs, in July, when he returned.
The Assembly ordered an edition of 300 copies to be printed at Edinburgh, for the use of
the members. — Minutes, p. 419.
* See the Acts of the Scotch Assembly and Parliament, and of the English Parliament, in
Minutes, pp. 419 sqq.; in the Edinb. ed. of the Conf., 1855; and in Innes, The Law of
Creeds, pp. 95 sqq.
VOL. L— C o o
760 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
formers. The Shorter Catechism, however, was for a long time ex
tensively used in England.
Another remarkable fact is that the English authors, with their sad
(experience of the laws of uniformity, never intended to make their
Confession binding upon the conscience as a document for subscrip-
tion, while the Scots adopted it at once.1 Dr. M'Crie accounts for this
difference partly 'by national idiosyncrasies, partly by the extreme
desire of the Scots to obtain that " covenanted uniformity " for which
England was not prepared, but which Scotland, with a Church fully
organized and a Parliament favorably disposed, regarded as the sheet-
anchor of her safety, and to which afterwards, as a sacred engagement,
she resolutely clung, in hope and against hope, in days of darkness arid
storms. In England Presbytery had yet to be organized, and at every
step it encountered conflicting and neutralizing influences.'
§ 95. ANALYSIS OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION.
SOURCES.
The Westminster Confession sets forth the Calvinistic system in its
scholastic maturity after it had passed through the sharp conflict with
Arminianism in Holland, and as it had shaped itself in the minds of
Scotch Presbyterians and English Puritans during their conflict with
High-Church prelacy. The leading ideas, with the exception of the
theory of the Christian Sabbath, were of Continental growth, but the
form was entirely English.
The framers of the Confession were no doubt quite familiar with
Continental theology ; Latin was then still the theological language ;
the Arminian controversy had excited the greatest attention in England,
and agitated the pulpit and the press for years ; the English Church
was well represented at the Synod of Dort; several divines of the
1 Dr. Tuckney, one of the chief authors of the Confession and Catechisms, says: ' For the
matter of imposing upon I am not guilty. In the Assembly I gave my vote with others that
the Confession of Faith put out by authority should not be required to be either sworn or
subscribed to—our having been burnt in the hand in that kind before; but [only] so as not
to be publicly preached or written against* (quoted by M'Crie, A nnaJa. p. 221 ). Baxter, also,
while highly recommending the Westminster Stand*ards, expressed the hope that 'the As-
sembly intended not- all that long Confession and those Catechisms to be imposed as a test
of Christian communion, nor to disown all that scrupled every word in it [them]. If they
did, T could not have commended it for any snch use, though it be useful for the instruction
of families' (Sylvester's Life of Baxter,?. 122, quoted by M'Crie p. 222).
§ 95. ANALYSIS OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 761
Assembly had spent some time in Holland, where they found a hos-
pitable refuge from persecution under Charles I., and were treated
with great respect by the Dutch ministers and divines.1
But while the Confession had the benefit of the Continental theol-
ogy, and embodied the results of the Arrninian controversy, it was not
framed on the model of any Continental Confession, nor of the earlier
Scottish Confessions, notwithstanding the presence and influence of
the Commissioners from the Church of Scotland. On the contrary, it
kept in the track of the English Articles of Religion, which the Assem-
bly was at first directed to revise, and with which it was essentially
agreed. It wished to carry on that line of development which was
begun, several years before the Arminian controversy, by the framers
of the Lambeth Articles (1595), and which was continued by Arch-
bishop Ussher in the Irish Articles (1615).3 It is a Calvinistic comple-
tion and sharper logical statement of the doctrinal system of the Thirty-
nine Articles, which stopped with the less definite Augustinian scheme,
and left a considerable margin for different interpretations. In point
of theological ability and fullness it is far superior to its predecessors.
The Westminster Confession agrees more particularly with the Arti-
cles which were adopted by the Protestant Church in Ireland, but after-
wards set aside by Archbishop Land through the Earl of Strafford.
This is manifest in the order and arrangement, in the titles of chapters,
in phraseology, and especially in the most characteristic features of
Calvin's theology — the doctrine of Predestination and of the Sacra-
ments. The resemblance is so striking that it must have been in-
tended for the purpose of showing the essential agreement of the
Assembly with the doctrinal standards of the English and Irish Ref-
ormation. Ussher himself had pursued the same course and incor-
porated in his work the substance of the English Articles and the
full text of the Lambeth Articles. He was a doctrinal Puritan, and
although he declined the invitation to a seat in the Assembly, he
was highly esteemed by the members for his learning, orthodoxy, and
1 Dr. M'Crie (Annals, p. 177) asserts without proof that the £ Westm. Conf. bears unmis-
takably the stamp of the Dutch theology in the sharp distinctions, logical forms, and judicial
terms into which the reformed doctrine had gradually moulded itself under the red heat of
the Arminian and Socinian controversies.' This is an error if we look to the direct source.
See below.
ft See pp. 658 and 662
762
THE CKEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
piety. His friend, Dr. Hoyle, Professor of Divinity at Dublin, be-
longed to the committee which framed the Confession.1 ^
The following tables will illustrate the relation of the Westminster
Confession to the preceding standards of the English and Irish Church.
WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 1647.
CHAPTER I.— OF HOLT SCRIPTURE.
VIL All things in Scripture are not alike
plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all ;
yet those things which are necessary to be
known, believed, and observed for salvation
are so clearly propounded and opened in some
place of Scripture or other, that not only the
learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the
ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient
understanding of them.
CHAPTER II.— OF GOD AND OF THE HOLT
TRINITT.
I. There is but one only living and true God,
who is infinite in being and perfection, a most
pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or
passions, etc.
III. In the unity of the Godhead there be
three persons, of one substance, power, and eter-
nity—God the Father, God the Son, and God
the Holy Ghost.
CHAPTER III.— OF GOD'S ETERNAL DECREE.
I. God from all eternity did, by the most
wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely
and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to
pass ; yet so as thereby neither is God the au-
thor of sin, nor is violence offered to the will
of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contin-
f of second causes taken away, but rather
III. By the decree of God, for the manifes-
tation of his glory, some men and angels are
predestinated unto everlasting life, and others
foreordained to everlasting death.
IV. These angels and men, thus predesti-
nated and foreordained, are particularly and
unchangeably designed ; and their number is
so certain and definite that it can not be either
increased or diminished.
V. Those of mankind that are predestinated
unto life, God, before the foundation of the
world was laid, according to his eternal and
immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and
good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ
unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free
grace and love, without any foresight of faith
or good works, or perseverance in either of
them, or any other thing in the creature, as
IRISH ARTICLES. 1615.
OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.
5. Although there be some hard things in
the Scripture, ... yet all things necessary
to be known unto everlasting salvation are
clearly delivered therein ; and nothing of that
kind is spoken under dark mysteries in one
place which is not in other places spoken
more familiarly and plainly, to the capacity
both of learned and unlearned.
OF FAITH IN THE HOLT TRINITT.
8. There is but one living and true God,
everlasting, without body, parts, or passions^
of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, etc.
And in unity of this Godhead, there be three
persons of one and the same substance* power,
and eternity— the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost. [English Art. I.]
OF GOD'S ETERNAL DECREE AND PREDES-
TINATION.
11. God, from all eternity, did, by his un-
changeable counsel," ordain whatsoever in time
should come to pass : yet so as thereby no vio-
lence is offered to the wills of the reasonable
creatures, and neither the liberty nor the con-
tingency of the second causes is taken away,
but established rather.
12. By the same eternal counsel God hath
predestinated some unto life, and reprobated
some unto death : of both which there is a
certain number known only to God, whioh can
neither be increased nor diminished. [See
Lambeth Art. I. and III.]
13. Predestination to life is the everlasting
purpose of God, whereby, before the founda-
tions of the world were laid, he hath constant-
ly decreed in his secret counsel to deliver from
curse and damnation those whom he hath
chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring
them by Christ unto everlasting salvation, as
vessels made to honor.
14. The cause moving God to predestinate
1 This agreement was first brought to light and set forth in detail by Prof. Mitchell, of St.
Andrews, in the pamphlet above quoted, and also in the Introdpataon to the Minutes, p. xlviL
§ 95. ANALYSIS OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION.
763
WESTMINSTER CONFESSION— Continued.
conditions, or causes moving him thereunto ;
and all to the praise of his glorious grace.
VI. As God hath appointed the elect unto
glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most
free purpose of his will, foreordained all the
means thereunto. Wnerefore they who are
elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed
by Christ; are effectually called to faith in
Christ by his Spirit working in due season;
are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by
his power through faith unto salvation. Nei-
ther are any other redeemed by Christ, effec-
tually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and
saved, but the elect only.
VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased,
according to the unsearchable counsel of his
own will, whereby he extendeth or withhold-
eth mercy as lie pleaseth, for the glory of his
sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by,
and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for
their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.
[Comp. Irish Art. § 14: 'leaving the rest to
be spectacles of his justice.'']
VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of
predestination is to be handled with special
prudence and care, that men attending to the
will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding
obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty
of their effectual vocation, be assured of their
eternal election.
So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise,
reverence, and admiration of God, and of hu-
mility, diligence, and abundant consolation, to
all that sincerely obey the gospel.
CHAPTER V. — OF PROVIDENCE.
IV. [His providence] extendeth itself even
to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and
men, and that not by a bare permission, but
such as has joined with it a most wise and
powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering
and governing of them in a manifold dispensa-
tion to his own holy ends : yet so as the sin-
fulness thereof proceedeth only from the creat-
ure and not from God, who, being most holy
and righteous, neither is nor can be the author
or approver of sin.
CHAPTER VI. — OF THE FALL OF MAN, OF
SIN, ETC.
V. This corruption of nature, during this
life, doth remain in those that are regenerated:
IRISH ARTICLES— Continued.
unto life is not the foreseeing of faith, or per-
severance, or good works, or of any thing which
is in the person predestinated, but only the
good pleasure of God himself. For all things
being ordained for the manifestation of his
glory, and his glory being to appear both in
the works of his mercy and of his justice, it
seemed good to his heavenly wisdom to choose
out a certain number towards whom he would
extend his undeserved mercy, leaving the rest
to be spectacles of his justice.
15. Such as are predestinated unto life, be
called according unto God's purpose (his Spirit
working in due season) and through grace they
obey the calling, they be justified freely, they
be made sons of God "by adoption, they be
made like the image of his only-begotten Son
Jesus Christ, they walk religiously in good
works, and at length, by God's mercy they
attain to everlasting felicity. But such as are
not predestinated to salvation shall finally be
condemned for their sins. [English Art.
XVII. ; Lambeth Art. II. ]
32. None can come unto Christ unless it be
given unto him, and unless the Father draw
him. And all men are not so drawn by the
Father that they may come unto the Son.
Neither is there such a sufficient measure of
grace vouchsafed unto every man whereby he
is enabled to come unto everlasting life.
[Lambeth Art. VII. , VIII., IX.]
17. We must receive God's promises in such
wise as they be generally set forth unto us in
Holy Scripture ; and in our doings, that will
of God is to be followed which we have ex-
pressly declared unto us in the Word of God.
[English Art. XVIL]
16. The godlike consideration of predestina-
tion and our election in Christ is full of sweet,
pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly
persons, etc. [English Art. XVII.]
OF THE FALL OF MAN, ETC.
28. God is not the author of sin; howbeithe
doth not only permit, but also by his providence
govern and order the same, guiding it in such
sort by his infinite wisdom as it turneth to
the manifestation of his own glory, and to the
good of his elect.
OF ORIGINAL SIN.
24. This corruption of nature doth remain
even in those that are regenerated; . . . And
764
THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
WESTMINSTER CONFESSION — Continued.
and although it be through Christ pardoned
and mortified, yet hoth itself and all the mo-
tions thereof are truly and properly sin.
CHAPTER VIII. — Or CHRIST THE MEDIATOR.
II. The Son of God, the second person in
the Trinity, heing very and eternal God, of
one substance and equal with the Father, did,
when the fullness of time was come, take upon
him man's nature, with all the essential prop-
erties and common infirmities thereof, yet
without sin : being conceived by the power of
the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin
Mary, of her substance. So that two whole,
perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and
the manhood, were inseparably joined together
in one person, without conversion, composi-
tion, or confusion. Which person is very God,
and very man, yet one Christ; the only Media-
tor between God and man.
CHAPTER XVI. —Or GOOD WORKS.
I. Good works are only such as God hath
commanded in his holy Word, and not such
as, without the warrant thereof,, are devised by
men, out of blind zeal, or upon any pretense of
good intention.
CHAPTER XVII. — OF THE PERSEVERANCE
OP THE SAINTS.
I. They whom God hath accepted in his Be-
loved, effectually called, and sanctified by his
Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away
from the state of grace ; but shall certainly
persevere therein to the end, and be eternally
saved.
CHAPTER XXI. — OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP
AND THE SABBATH DAT.
II. Religious worship is to be given to God
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and to him
alone.
VIII. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto
the Lord, when men ... do not only ob-
serve an holy rest all the day from their own
works, words, and thoughts about their world-
ly employments and recreations, but also are
taken up the whole time in the public and pri-
vate exercises of his worship, and in the duties
of necessity and mercy.
CHAPTER XXIII. — OF THE CIVIL MAGIS-
TRATE.
III. The Civil Magistrate may not assume
to himself the administration of the Word and
IRISH ARTICLES— Continued.
howsoever for Christ's sake there be no con-
demnation to such as are regenerate and do
believe, yet doth the apostle acknowledge that
in itself this concupiscence hath the nature of
sin. [English Art. IX.]
OF CHRIST, THE MEDIATOR OF THE SECOND
COVENANT.
29. The Son, which is the Word of the Fa-
ther, begotten from everlasting of the Father,
the true and eternal God, of one substance with
the Father, took man's nature in the womb of
the blessed Virgin, of her substance : so that
two whole and perfect natures, that is to say,
the Godhead and manhood, were inseparably
joined in one person, making one Christ very
God and very Man. [English Art. II.]
OF SANCTIFICATION AND GOOD WORKS.
42. The works which God would have his
people to walk in are such as he hath com-
manded in his Holy Scripture, and not such
works as men have devised out of their own
brain, of a blind zeal and devotion, without
the warrant of the Word of God.
OF JUSTIFICATION AND FAITH.
38. A true, lively, justifying faith, and the
sanctifying Spirit of God, is not extinguished,
nor vanisheth away, in the regenerate, either
finally or totally. ' [Lambeth Art. V.]
OF THE SERVICE OF GOD.
54. All religious worship ought to be given
to God alone.
56. The first day of the week, which is the
Lord's day, is wholly to be dedicated unto the
service of God ; and therefore we are bound
therein to rest from our common and daily
business, and to bestow that leisure upon holy
exercises, both public and private.
OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE.
58. ... Neither do we give unto him hereby
the administration of the Word and sacra-
§ 9:.. ANALYSIS OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION.
765
WESTMINSTER CONFESSION — Continued.
sacraments, or the power of the keys of the
kingdom of heaven.
CHAPTER XXV.— OF THE CHURCH.
I. The Catholic or Universal Church, which
is invisible, consists of the whole number of
the elect that have been, are, or shall be gath-
ered into one, under Christ, the head thereof;
and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of
him who filleth all in all.
CHAPTER XXVIIL— OF BAPTISM.
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Test-
ament, ordained by Jesus Christ, wo* only for
the solemn admission of the party baptized
into the visible Church; but also to be unto him
a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his
ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of re-
mission of sins, and of his giving up unto God,
through Jesus Christ to walk in newness of
life.
CHAPTER XXIX. — OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.
I. The sacrament of his body and blood
. . . for the perpetual remembrance of the
sacrifice of himself in his1 death, the sealing all
the benefits thereof unto true believers, their
spiritual nourishment and growth in him.
VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking
of the visible elements in this sacrament, do
then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed,
yet not carnally and "corporally, but spiritually,
receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all
benefits of his death : the body and blood of
Christ being then not corporally or carnally
in, with, or under the bread and wine, yet as
really, but spiritually, present to the faith of
believers in that ordinance, as the elements
themselves are to the outward senses.
VIII. Although ignorant and wicked men
receive the outward elements in this sacra-
ment, yet they receive not the thing signified
thereby ; but by their unworthy coming there-
unto are guilty of the body and blood of the
Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore,
all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are
unfit to enjoy communion with him. so are
they unworthy of the Lord's table, and can not,
without great sin against Christ, while they
remain such, partake of these holy mysteries,
or be admitted thereto.
IRISH ARTICLES— Continued.
nents, or the power of the keys, etc. [See
English Art. XXXVII.]
OF THE CHURCH, ETC.
68. There is but one Catholic Church, out
of which there is no salvation : containing the
universal company of all the saints that ever
were, are, or shall be gathered together in one
body, under one head, Christ Jesus.
OF BAPTISM.
89. Baptism is not only an outward sign of
our profession, . . . but much more a sacra-
ment of our admission into the Church, sealing
unto us our new birth (and consequently our
justification, adoption, and sanctification) by
the communion which we have with Jesus
Christ. [English Art. XXVII.]
OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.
92. The Lord's Supper is not only a sign,
but much more a sacrament of our preserva-
tion in the Church, sealing unto us our spiritual
nourishment and continual growth in Christ.
[English Art. XXVIIL]
94. But in the inward and spiritual part
the same body and blood is really and sub-
stantially presented unto all those who have
grace to receive the Son of God, even to all
those that believe in his name. And unto such
as in this manner do worthily and with faith
repair unto the Lord's table, the body and blood
of Christ is not only signified and offered, but
also truly exhibited and communicated.
96. The wicked, and such as want a lively
faith, although they do carnally and visibly (as
St. Augustine speaketh) press with their teeth
the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ,
yet in no wise are they made partakers of
Christ ; but rather to their condemnation do
eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great
a thing. [English Art. XXIX.]
CONTENTS.
Neal says: 'Though all the divines were in the anti-Arminian
scheme, yet some had a greater latitude than others. I find in my
766 THE CBEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
MS. the dissent of several members against some expressions relating
to reprobation, to the imputation of the active as well as passive obe-
dience of Christ, and to several passages in the chapter on liberty of
conscience and Church discipline; but the Confession, as far as re-
lated to articles of faith, passed the Assembly and Parliament by a
very great majority.' 1 Neal does not specify the differences to which
he alludes. Since the publication of the Minutes we are enabled to
ascertain them, at least to some extent, from the meagre and -broken
reports of debates on election and reprobation, on the fall of Adam,
on the Covenants, on providence, free-will, creation, justification, sanc-
tification, the sacraments, and other topics. In most cases the fact is
simply mentioned that there was a debate ; in others brief extracts of
speeches are given which reveal minor differences of views, though
not of parties, or even of schools. The debates on Church government
were much more serious and heated. The harmony of so many
scholars from all parts of England and Scotland, on a whole scheme
of divinity, is truly surprising, and accounts for their sanguine hopes
of securing a doctrinal uniformity in the three kingdoms.
The Confession consists of thirty-three chapters, which cover, in nat-
ural order, all the leading articles of the Christian faith from the cre-
ation to the final judgment. It exhibits the consensus of the Eeformed
Churches on the Continent and in England and Scotland, which was
one of the objects of Parliament intrusted to the Assembly.
BIBLIOLOGY.
Following the precedent of most of the Continental Eeformed
Confessions and the Irish Articles, the Westminster formulary prop-
erly begins with the Bible, on which all our theology must be based,
and sets forth its divine inspiration, authority, and sufficiency as an
infallible rule of faith and practice, in opposition both to Romanism,
which elevates ecclesiastical tradition to the dignity of a joint rule of
faith, and to Rationalism, which teaches the sufficiency of natural
reason. It excludes the Jewish Apocrypha entirely from the Canon,
while in the English and Irish Articles they are at least enumerated,
though distinguished from the canonical books.3 The Confession
1 Vol. II. p, 41.
2 The Lutheran symbols make no such distinction and give no list of the canonical books.
§ 95. ANALYSIS OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION 767
gives to reason, or the light of nature, its proper place, distinguishes
between the original Scripture and the translations, maintains the true
exegetical principle of the self-interpretation of Scripture in the light
of the Spirit that inspired it, and carefully avoids committing itself to
any mechanical or magical or any other particular theory concerning
the mode and degrees of inspiration, or obstructing the investigation of
critical questions concerning the text and the authorship (as distinct
from the canonicity) of the several books.1 It rests the authority of
the Bible on its own intrinsic excellence and the internal testimony
of the Spirit rather than the external testimony of the Church, how-
ever valuable this is as a continuous witness.2
No other Protestant symbol has such a clear, judicious, concise, and
exhaustive statement of this fundamental article of Protestantism.
It has been pronounced equal in ability to the Tridentine decree
on justification.3 It may more aptly be compared to the Tri-
dentine decree on Scripture and tradition (Sess. IY.) and the re-
cent Vatican decree on the dogmatic constitution of the Catholic
faith (Sess. III.), as far as this relates to reason and revelation, and
may be regarded as the best Protestant counterpart of the Koman
Catholic doctrine of the rule of faith. The Confession plants itself
exclusively on the Bible platform, without in the least depreciating
the invaluable aid of human learning — patristic, scholastic, and mod-
They have no separate article on the Scriptures at all, beyond the important statement in
the introduction to the Formula of Concord.
1 Thus we find that the Epistle to the Hebrews is named separately, and not included iq
1 fourteen Epistles of Paul,' as in the Belgic Confession. Canonicity is not necessarily de->
pendent on a traditional view of authorship or genuineness.
2 Ch. I. 5 : * We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high
and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture, and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy
of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole
(which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's sal-
vation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are ar-
guments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the "Word of God ; yet, notwith-
standing, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof
is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our
hearts.'
3 While arguing against creeds and councils, Dean Stanley (in the Contemp. Rev. for Aug.
1874, p. 499) writes : ' Is there any single theological question which any council or synod has
argued and decided with an ability equal to that of any of the great theologians, lay or cler,
ical ? The nearest approaches to it are the chapters on Justification in the Decrees of Trent,
and on the Bible in the Westminster Confession,' Comp. also the remarks of Dr. Mitchell,
tntrod. to Minutes, p. xlix.
768 THE CREEDS or CHRISTENDOM.
ern — in its own proper place, as a means to an end and an aid in
ascertaining the true sense of the mind of the Holy Spirit, who
through his own inspired Word must alternately decide all questions
of the Christian faith and duty. It is clear that Protestantism must
sink or swim with this principle. Criticism, philosophy, and science
may sweep away human traditions, confessions, creeds, and other out-
works, but they can never destroy the fortress of God's Word, which
liveth and abideth forever.
THEOLOGY AND OHRISTOLOGY.
Oh. II, <0f the Trinity,' and Oh. XVIII., <Of Christ the Media-
tor/ contain one of the best statements of the Nicene doctrine of the
Trinity and of the Chalcedoriian Christology, as held by all orthodox
Churches. On these articles the evangelical Protestant Confessions
are entirely agreed.
PREDESTINATION.
Ch. Ill, 'Of God's Eternal Decree,31 Ch.V., 'Of Providence,' Ch.
IX., < Of Free Will,' and Ch. XVIII., < Of the Perseverance of the
Saints,' are closely connected. They present a logical chain of ideas
which make up what is technically called ' the Calvinistic system,' as
developed first by Calvin himself against Eomanism, then in Holland
and England against Arminianism.
This system had at that time a powerful hold upon the serious re-
ligious minds in England and Scotland, including many leading Epis-
copal divines (not of the Landian type) who otherwise had no sympa-
thy with Puritanism, and ridiculed it with bitter sarcasm, like Dr.
South. Even the authorized English version of the Bible (1611) has
been charged by Arminians with a Calvinistic bias, while Calvinists have
never complained of any defect in this respect.2 The only question in
1 The English and Scotch editions use the singular, some American editions the plural (as
in the Catechisms). There was a dispute in the Assembly about decree and decrees. Sev-
eral members were opposed to dividing the one, all-comprehending decree of God. Seaman
said : 'All the odious doctrine of the Arminians is from their distinguishing of the decrees,
but our divines say they are one and the same decree.' Reynolds differed. See Minutes,
p. 151. But both Catechisms in all editions have decrees (comprehended under the one
purpose of God ; see Shorter Catechism, Quest. 7).
a The charge derives some plausibility from the fact that the supralapsarian Beza, by his
Greek Testament and his Latin translation and notes, exerted a marked influence on the trans-
lators. It is supported chiefly by three passages. In Matt. xx. 23, the words ' it shall be
given' are unnecessarily inserted (after the precedent of the Geneva version). In Acts ii.
§ 95. ANALYSIS OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 769
the Assembly was as to the logical extent to which they should carry
the doctrine of predestination in a confessional statement The more
consistent and rigorous scheme of supralapsarianisin had its advocates
in Westminster as well as in Dort, and was favored by Dr. Twisse, the
Prolocutor, who followed Beza and Gomarus to the giddy abyss of in-
cluding the fall itself in the absolute eternal decree as a necessary
means for the manifestation of God's justice; but the infralapsarian
(or sublapsarian) scheme of Augustine decidedly triumphed. Supralap-
sarianism has always remained only a private speculation.
The Westminster Confession goes, indeed, beyond the two Helvetic
Confessions, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Scotch Confession, and the
Thirty-nine Articles ; but it goes not a whit further than the Canons of
Dort (which had the approval of the delegates of King James), the Lam-
beth Articles, and the Irish Articles.1 It teaches really no more on pre-
destination than the great Catholic Augustine had taught in the fourth
century, as well as two archbishops of Canterbury — Anselm in the elev-
enth, and Bradwardine in the fourteenth century.2 It gives, however, a
clearer logical shape and greater prominence to the doctrine in the sys-
tem by placing it among the first articles. It puts the fall with its sinful
consequences only under & permissive (as distinct from a causal or ef-
fective] decree, and emphatically exempts God from all authorship of
sin.3 It does not teach the horrible and blasphemous doctrine (so often
unjustly and unscrupulously charged upon Calvinism) that God from
47, we read, 'The Lord added to the Church such as should be saved,1 instead of 'such as
were being saved, or in the way of salvation ' (roi)£ ffuZopevove, not rove ffw$riff0fjievov€).
In Heb. x. 38 — 'Now the just shall live by faith; but if any man draw back, my soul shall
have no pleasure in him' — any man is inserted, with Beza ('si quis se subduxerit'), to dis-
tinguish the subject of vTroorttX^rai from the SIKQLOQ of the first clause, and to evade an
argument against the perseverance of saints. But the case here is doubtful.
1 See the comparative table, pp. 762, 763. Ussher adhered to his views on predestination,
which he had expressed in the Irish Articles. In his ' Method of the Christian Religion/
written in his youth, but revised and republished shortly before his death, he has even a
stronger passage on reprobation than the Westminster Confession, viz., * Did God, then, before
he made man, determine to save some and reject others ? A. Yes, surely ; before they had
done either good or evil, God in his eternal counsel set some apart upon whom he would in
time show the riches of his mercy, and determined to withhold the same from others, upon
whom he would show the severity of his justice.' See Vol. XI. of his Works; and Mitchell,
p. liv. note.
8 Bradwardine's treatise, De causa Dei adversus Pelagium, which leads even to supralap-
sarianism, was republished in London in 1618 by Archbishop Abbot, the Calvinistic prede-
cessor of the anti Calvinistic Laud.
3 Ch. V. 4 : ' God, being mqst Jiolv and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or ap-
prover of sin,'
770 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
eternity foreordained men for sin and damnation; but it does teach
that out of the fallen mass of corruption Grod elected a definite num-
ber of men to salvation and 6 passed by ' the rest, leaving them to the
just punishment of their sins.
This is severe and harsh enough, but very different from a decree of
eternal reprobation, which term nowhere occurs in the Confession.
The difference is made more clear from the debates in the c Minutes.'
Several prominent members, as Calamy, Arrowsmith, Vines, Seaman,
who took part in the preparation of the doctrinal standards, sym-
pathized with the hypothetical universalism of the Saumur school
(Cameron and Arnyrauld) and with the moderate position of Daven-
ant and the English delegates to the Synod of Dort. They expressed
this sympathy on the floor of the Assembly, as well as on other occa-
sions. They believed in a special effective election and final perse-
verance of the elect (as a necessary means to a certain end), but they
held at the same time that God sincerely intends to save all men;
that Christ intended to die, and actually died, for all men ; and that
the difference is not in the intention and offer on the part of God,
but in the acceptance and appropriation on the part of men.1
1 Calamy said, in a sermon before the House of Commons : * It is most certain that God is
not the cause of any man's damnation. He found us sinners in Adam, but made none sin-
ners.* la the debate on redemption in the Assembly, he stated: 'I am far from universal
redemption in the Arminian sense, but I hold with our divines in the Synod of Dort that
Christ did pay a price for all, [with] absolute intention for the elect, [with] conditional in-
tention for the reprobate in case they do believe ; that all men should be salvabiles, non ol>-
stante lapsu Adami; that Jesus Christ did not only die sufficiently for all, but God did intend,
in giving of Christ, and Christ in giving himself did intend, to put all men in a state of salvation
in case they do obey.' ... * This universality of redemption does neither intrude upon either
doctrine of special election or special grace' (Minutes, p. 152). f The difference is not in the
offer, but in the application. For the word world [in John iii. 1 6] signifies the whole world '
(p. 156). 'It can not be meant of the elect because of that whosoever believeth, and Mark
xvi., "Preach the Gospel to every creature " ' (p. 154). * In the point of election I am for
special election, and for reprobation I am for massa corrupta ; . . . there is ea administrate of
grace to the reprobate that they do willfully damn themselves ' (p. 153). Seaman said : * All
in the first Adam were made liable to damnation, so all are liable to salvation in the second
Adam. Every man was damnabilis, so is every man salvabilis' (p. 154). Dr. Mitchell (pp.
Ivi. sqq.) shows that Arrowsmith, Gataker, and other members of the Assembly, in their pri-
vate wiitings, agreed with Calamy. His interpretation of Kofffios, in John iii. 16, is indeed the
only tenable one, and seems to be favored by the exegetical tact of Calvin himself (in loc.\
for Calvin the exegete is more fair and free than Calvin the theologian. Dr. Arrowsmith,
who was a member of the Committees on the Confession and on the Catechisms, in his
explanation of Rom. ix. 22, 23, justly presses the important difference between the passive
Karnpriff^kva and the active irpor)Toifj.aff£v. <I desire,' he says, 'to have it punctually ob-
served that the vessels of wrath are only said to be fitted to destruction, without naming by
§ 95. ANALYSIS OF THE WESTMINSTEE CONFESSION. 771
Another important and modifying feature is that the Confession, far
from teaching fatalism or necessitarianism, expressly recognizes the
freedom of will, and embraces in the divine decrees c the liberty or con-
tingency of second causes ' (Oh. III., I).1 Herein it agrees with Ussher,
Bullinger, and Calvin himself, and favorably differs from the Lutheran
Formula of Concord, which (following the strong expressions of Luther
and Flacius) un philosophically represents the human will before con-
version to be as passive as a dead log or stone. The Confession makes
no attempt to solve the apparent contradiction between divine sover-
eignty and human freedom, but it at least recognizes both sides of the
problem, and gives a basis for the assertion that God's absolute decrees
have no causal effect upon the sinful actions of men, for which they
alone are responsible.
With the Calvinistic particularism the limitation of redemption2 is
closely connected. The difference is chiefly one of logical consistency.
It refers to the efficiency of redemption or its actual application. All
whom — God, Satan, or themselves ; whereas, on the other side, God himself is expressly said
to have prepared his chosen vessels of mercy unto glory. Which was purposely done (as I
humbly conceive) to intimate a remarkable difference between election and preterition, in that
election is a proper cause not only of salvation itself, but of all the graces which have any
causal tendency thereunto, and therefore God is said to prepare his elect to glory; whereas
negative reprobation is no proper cause either of damnation itself or of the sin that bringeth
it, but an antecedent only ; wherefore the non-elect are indeed said to be fitted to that de-
struction which their sins in conclusion bring upon them, but not by God. I call it a remark-
able difference, because where it is once rightly apprehended and truly believed, it sufficeth to
stop the mouth of one of those greatest calumnies and odiums which are usually cast upon
our doctrine of predestination, viz., that God made sundry of his creatures on purpose to
damn them — a thing which the rhetoric of our adversaries is wont to blow up to the highest
pitch of aggravation. But it is soon blown away by such as can tell them, in the words of
the excellent Dr. Davenant, " It is true that the elect are severally created to the end and
intent that they may be glorified together with their head, Christ Jesus ; but for the non-
elect, we can not truly say that they are created to the end that they may be tormented with
the devil and his angels. No man is created by God with a nature and quality fitting him
to damnation. Yea, neither in the state of his innocency nor in the state of the fall and his
corruption doth he receive any thing from God which is a proper and fit means of bringing
him to his damnation." '—Chain of Principles, pp. 335, 336, etc., edition 1659 (quoted by
Mitchell, p. Ixi.).
1 Comp. Ch. IX. 1 : 'God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty that it
is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined, to good or evil (Matt,
xvii. 12; Deut. xxx. 19).
2 The term atonement is not used in the Confession. The English Bible exceptionally
renders Bom. v. 11, Karc^Xayrj (reconciliation), by atonement, which in its old sense (=at-one-
ment) means reconciliation, but is now equivalent to expiation, satisfaction (tXcto/idc). Re-
demption (diroX-urpuais) is a wider term. This distinction should be kept in view in the
explanation of the Confession.
772 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
were agreed as to its absolute sufficiency or its infinite intrinsic value
All could subscribe tlie formula that Christ died sufficienter pro om-
nibus, ejficaciter pro electis. Dr. Reynolds, who seems to have de-
fended the more rigorous view, said in the debate : ' The Synod in-
tended no more than to declare the sufficiency of the death of Christ ; it
is pretium in se> of sufficient value to all — nay, ten thousand worlds.'1
Nevertheless, behind the logical question is the far more important
theological and practical question concerning the extent of the divine
intention or purpose, viz., whether this is to be measured by God's love
and the intrinsic value of Christ's merits, or by the actual result, On
this question there was a difference of opinion among the divines, as
the * Minutes ' show, and this difference seems to have been left open by
the framers of the Confession. On the one hand, the closing sentences
of Ch. III. 6 (' neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually
called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only'), and
Oh. VIII. 8 (<To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption,
he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same'),
favor a limited redemption, unless the word redeemed be understood in
a narrower sense, so as to be equivalent to saved, and to imply the subject-
ive application or actual execution.2 On the other hand, Oh. VII. 3
teaches that under the covenant of grace the Lord ' freely offereth
unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them
faith in him, that they may be saved ; and promising to give unto all
those that are ordained unto Itfe his Holy Spirit, to make them will-
ing and able to believe.' This looks like a compromise between con-
ditional universalism taught in the first clause, and particular election
1 Minutes, p. 153. The ablest modern defendants of a limited atonement, Drs. Cunning-
ham and Hodge (see his Theology, Vol. II. pp. 544 sqq.), are as emphatic on the absolute
sufficiency as Reynolds. Their arguments are chiefly logical; but logic depends on the
premises, and is a two-edged sword which may be turned against them as well. For if the
atonement be limited in design, it must be limited in the offer ; or if unlimited in offer, the
offer made to the non-elect must be insincere and hypocritical, which is inconsistent with the
truthfulness and goodness of God. Every Calvinist preaches on the assumption that the
offer of salvation is truly and sincerely extended to all his hearers, and that it is their own
fault if they are not saved.
a Compare the remarks of Mitchell, p. Ivii., who considers the language of the Confession
in Ch. III. compatible with the liberal view, while the other passage, strictly construed, ex-
cludes it, unless « redemption * be there taken in the sense of Baxter, as meaning * that special
redemption proper to the elect which was accompanied with an intention of actual application
of the saving benefits in time.' The difference of views came up again in the debate on the
68th question of the Larger Catechism. See Minutes, pp. 369, 392, 393,
§ 95. ANALYSIS OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. >ft8
taught in the second. This is in substance the theory of the school of
Saumur, which was first broached by a Scotch divine, Cameron (d,1625),
and more fully developed by his pupil Amyrault, between A.D. 1630
and 1650, and which was afterwards condemned in the Helvetic Con-
sensus Formula (1675). 1
ANTHROPOLOGY.
Chapters VI. to IX. present the usual doctrines of the Evangelical
Reformed (Augustinian) anthropology, with the new feature of the
Covenants. The doctrine of covenants belongs to a different scheme
of theology from that of the divine decrees. It is biblical and histori-
cal rather than scholastic and predestinarian. It views man from the
start as a free responsible agent, not as a machine for the execution of
absolute divine decrees.
Oh. VII. distinguishes two covenants of God with man, the cov-
enant of works made with Adam and his posterity on condition of
perfect and personal obedience, and a covenant of grace made in
Christ with believers, offering free salvation on condition of faith in
him. The covenant of grace again is administered under two dispensa-
tions, the law and the gospel. In the Old Testament it was adminis-
tered by promises, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other
types and ordinances which forshadowed the future Saviour. Under
the New Testament the covenant of grace is dispensed through the
preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments.
There are therefore not two covenants of grace differing in substance,
but one and the same under various dispensations.
The exegetical arguments for the covenant of works are derived
chiefly from Gal. iii. 10, 12, 21 ; Eom. iii. 20 ; x. 5 ; but these passages
refer to the covenant of the law of Moses, not to a covenant in the
primitive state, and lead rather to a distinction between the covenant
of the law (which, however, was also a covenant of promise) and the
covenant of the gospel (the fulfillment of the law and promise).2
The doctrine of covenants is usually traced to Dutch origin ; but it
was inaugurated after the middle of the sixteenth century by Caspar
Olevianus (d. 1587), one of the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism,
in a work on fi the Nature of God's Covenant of Mercy with the Elect/
1 See pp. 480 sqq.
* Later federalists based the primitive covenant of works on Hos. vi, 7. See p. 484.
774 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
on the basis of Jer. xxxviii. 31-34; Heb. viii. 8-12.1 Dr. Mitchell says
that the Confession teaches no more on this subject than had been
taught before by Rollock in Scotland and Oartwright in England. It
is not probable, though not impossible, that the more fully developed
theory of the covenants by John Coccejus was already known in Eng-
land at the time when the Confession was framed. Coccejus likewise
distinguishes the fcedus operum or naturae in the state of innocence,
and afcedus gratice, after the fall, but he views the latter under three
stages, the patriarchal or Abrahamic (ceconomia ante legem\ the Mosaic
(oBConomia sub lege\ and the Christian (ceconomia post legem)*
SOTERIOLOGT.
Chapters X. to XVIII. contain the best confessional statement of
the evangelical doctrines of justification, adoption, sanctification, sav-
ing faith, good works, and assurance of salvation. The statement of
justification by faith is as guarded and discriminating on the Protest-
ant side of the question as the Tridentine statement of justification by
faith and works is on the Roman Catholic side.
ECOLESIOLOGT.
Chapters XXV. and XXVI. In the doctrine of the Church the
Protestant distinction between the invisible and visible Church is first
clearly formulated, and the purest Churches under heaven are admit-
ted to be < subject to mixture and error.' Christ is declared to be the
only head of the Church — a most important principle, for which the
Church of Scotland has contended faithfully against the encroach-
ments of the civil power through years of trial and persecution. On
the subject of the independence and self-government of the Church in
her own proper sphere, the Presbyterian Church of Scotland (as also
the Dissenting Churches in England, and all American Churches) are
1 De substantiafcederis gratuiti, etc. See a German version in Sudhoff's Olevianus und
Ursinus (Elberfeld, 1857), pp. 573 sqq.
3 Coccejus, or Koch, was at first Professor in Bremen (his native place), then at Franeker,
1636, and last at Leyden, 1649, where he died, 1669. His chief work, Svmma doctrines de
fadere et testamento Dei, appeared in 1648 (a year after the Westminster Conf.) and again
in 1653. It was the first attempt of a hiblical and exegetical theology in distinction from the
scholastic orthodoxy which then prevailed in Holland. Coccejus was denounced by the
orthodox as a Jndaizing and Pelagianizing heretic. Comp. the article Coccejus and his
School, by Dr. Ebrard, in Herzog's Eeal-JEncykl. Vol. II. pp. 742 sqq.
§ 95. ANALYSIS OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 775
immeasurably in advance of all the Protestant Churches on the Con-
tinent, and even of the Church of England, which is still dependent on
the crown and the will of a Parliament composed of professors of all
religions and no religion.
But while the Confession claims full freedom for the Church in
the management of her own affairs, it claims no authority or superior-
ity over the State like the hierarchical principle. It declares the Pope
of Rome, who pretends to be the supreme head of the Church on
earth, to be * that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition that
exalteth himself in the Church against Christ and all that is called
God'(2Thess.ii.3,4,8, 9).1
The chapter on the Communion of Saints urges the duty of cherish-
ing and promoting union and harmony with all Christians of what-
ever part of the visible Church.2
THE SACRAMENTS.
The doctrine of the Sacraments in general, and Baptism, and the
Lord's Supper in particular, in Chs. XXVIL-XXL8T., is the Calvin-
istic theory which we have already discussed elsewhere.3 It is the
same which is taught in all the Reformed Confessions — Continental,
Anglican, and Scotch. This is admitted by candid scholars. * On the
doctrine of the sacraments,' says Marsden, an English Episcopalian,
' we do not perceive a shade of difference from the teaching of the
Church of England.'4 And Dr. Mitchell, a Scotch Presbyterian, says:
6 The teaching of the Confession on the Lord's Supper is the teaching
of Oranmer, Latimer, and Ridley, of Hooker, Ussher, and many others,
... as well as of Knox, who from his long residence in England, and
with English exiles on the Continent, had thoroughly caught up their
1 This statement, which is made also in other Protestant Confessions and in the Irish
Articles (No. 80 ; see Vol. III. p. 510), does not unchurch the Church of Home, or declare
her ordinances invalid; for Antichrist sits in the temple of God, and there is a material differ-
ence between the papacy and the Roman Catholic ( Jhurch, as there is between the Jewish
hierarchy and the people of Israel.
3 Presbyterians therefore act in perfect consistency with their Confession if they take a
leading part in all Bible Societies, Tract Societies, the Evangelical Alliance, and other cath-
olic societies. They are among the most liberal of orthodox denominations in the support
of these societies,
* See pp. 281, 376, 455, 601, 639, 641, 645.
* History of the Later Puritans, p. 84. He then quotes the questions of the Shorter Gate*
chism on the Sacraments.
VOL. L — D D D
776 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
warm and catholic utterances. This teaching is as far removed from
the bare remembrance theory attributed to the early Swiss Kefonners
as from the consubstantiation of Luther and the local or snpra-local
presence contended for by Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics. It
is so spiritual, yet so really satisfying, that even some High-Churchmen
have owned that it would be difficult to find a better directory in the
study of questions relating to this sacrament than is supplied in the
Confession of Faith.31
THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH. '
Oh. XXI., i Of Eeligious Worship and the Sabbath Day,' must be
mentioned as (next to the Irish Articles) the first symbolical indorse-
ment of what may be called the Puritan theory of the Christian Sab-
bath which was not taught by the Reformers and the Continental Con-
fessions, but which has taken deep root in England, Scotland, and the
United States, and has become the basis of a far stricter observance of
the Lord's day than exists in any other country. This observance is one
of the most prominent national and social features of Anglo-American
Christianity, and at once strikes the attention of every traveler.2
The way was gradually prepared for it. Calvin's view of the au-
thority of the fourth commandment was stricter than Luther's, Knox's
view stricter than Calvin's, and the Puritan view stricter than Knox's.3
1 Introduction to Minutes, p. Ixviii.
3 The most recent manifestation of the national American sentiment was the closing of the
Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia (1 876) on the Lord's day.
3 There is a tradition that Knox once called on Calvin on Sunday, and found him enjoying
the recreation of bowling on a green. Knox himself on one occasion had one or two friends
taking supper with him on Sunday night, and no doubt considered this innocent (see Kan-
dolph's letter to Cecil, Nov. 30, 1562, quoted by Hessey, Bampton Lectures on Sunday, Lond.
1860, p. 270). On the other hand, it is a fact that the designation of * Sabbath' for Sunday,
and the enumeration of £ the breaking of the Sabbath ' among the grosser sins, originated
with Knox, or at all events in Scotland at his time. The First Book of Discipline, which
was drawn up by Knox and five other ministers, abolishes Christmas, Circumcision, and Epiph-
any, 'because they have no assurance in God's Word,' but enjoins the observance of Sun-
day in these words : * The Sabbath must be kept strictly in all towns, both forenoon and aft-
ernoon, for hearing of the Word ; at afternoon upon the Sabbath, the Catechism shall be
taught, the children examined, and the baptism ministered. Public prayers shall be used
upon the Sabbath, as well afternoon as before, when sermons can not be had.' The third
General Assembly resolved, July 4, 1562, to petition the queen for the punishing of Sabbath-
breaking and all the vices which are * commanded to be punished by the law of God, and yet
not by the law of the realm.' Similar acts occur in the Assemblies of 1575, 1 590, and 1 59C.
See Gilfillan's work on the Sabbath, and Appendix D to Mitchell's tract on the Westmin-
ster Confession, pp. 53 sqq.
§ 95. ANALYSIS off THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION.
The Prayer-Book of the Church of England, by incorporating the re-
sponsive reading of the Decalogue in the regular service, kept alive in
the minds of the people the perpetual obligation of the fourth com-
mandment, and helped to create a public sentiment within the Church
of England favorable to the Puritan theory, although practically great
desecration prevailed during Elizabeth's reign. The 'judicious5 Hook-
er, who was no Puritan, says : £ We are bound to account the sanctifi-
cation of one day in seven a duty which God's immutable law doth
exact forever? *
Towards the close of Elizabeth's reign the Sabbath question assumed
the importance and dignity of a national movement, and of a practical
reformation which traveled from England to Scotland and from both
countries to North America. The chief impulse to this movement was
given in 1595 by Dr. NICOLAS BOWND (or BOUND),* a learned Puritan
clergyman of Norton in Suffolk. He is not the originator, but the sys-
tematizer or first clear expounder of the Puritan theory of the Chris-
tian Sabbath, namely, that the Sabbath or weekly day of holy rest is a
primitive institution of the benevolent Creator for the benefit of man,
and that the fourth commandment as to its substance (that is, the keep-
ing holy one day out of seven) is as perpetual in design and as binding
upon the Christians as any other of the Ten Commandments, of which
Christ said that not ' one jot or one tittle ' shall pass away till all be
fulfilled.3
1 JSccles, Polity, Bk. V. ch. 70, sec. 9. The fifth book came out in 1597, two years after
Bownd's book* Usshev, Leighton, Pearson, Beveridge, Cecil, and other leading divines of
the Church of England take the same ground on the perpetuity of the fourth commandment,
and so far agree with the Puritan theory. But the Puritan practice in Scotland and New
England often runs into Jndai/ing excesses.
* He was a graduate of Cambridge, was suspended with others in 1583 for some act of
non-conformity, and died in 1 607. Isaac Walton states (in his Life of Hooker) that he was
offered by Whitgift the mastership of the Temple, but this seems inconsistent with the Arch-
bishop's hostility to his book. Bownd wrote also The Holy Exerdse of Fasting (1004); A
Storehouse of Comfort for the Afflicted (1604); and a sermon on the Unbelief of Thomas, for
the Comfort of all who desire to believe, which armeth us against Despair in the Hour of Death
(1608). There is a biographical sketch of Bownd in Brook's Lives of the Puritans, Vol. II.
pp. 171-176.
3 The first edition of Bownd's book appeared in 1695, and was dedicated to the Earl of
Essex (see the title in Vol. V. p. 211 of Fuller's Church History, Brewer's ed.). The second
and enlarged edition of 1606 was dedicated to the Bishop of Norwich and the Bean of Ely,
and bears the following characteristic title (which somewhat differs from the title of the first) :
* S&bbathum Veteris et Novi Testamenti : or, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, held and
practised of the Church of God, both before and under the Law, and in the time of the Gos-
778 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
The work in which this theory was ably and earnestly vindicated
proved to be a tract for the times. Heylin, a High-Church opponent,
says ' that in a very little time it grew the most bewitching error, the
most popular deceit that had ever been set on foot in the Church of
England.' l Fuller dates from it ' the more solemn and strict observ-
ance of the Lord's day,' and gives the following description of the effect
produced by it :
' It is almost incredible how taking this doctrine was, partly because of its own purity, and
partly for the eminent piety of such persons as maintained it, so that the Lord's day, especially
in corporations, began to be precisely kept, people becoming a law to themselves, forbearing
such sports as [were] yet by statute permitted ; yea, many rejoicing at their own restraint
therein. On this day the stoutest fencer laid down the buckler, the most skilful nrcher un-
bent his bow, counting all shooting besides the mark ; May-games and Morris-dances grew
out of request, and good reason that bells should be silenced from gingling about men's legs,
if their very ringing in steeples were adjudged unlawful; some of them were ashamed of their
former pleasures, like children which, grown bigger, blushing themselves out of their rattles
and whistles. Others forbore them for fear of their superiors, and many left them off out of
a politic compliance, lest otherwise they should be accounted licentious.
4 Yet learned men were much divided in their judgments about these Sabbatarian doc-
trines. Some embraced them as ancient truths consonant to Scripture, long disused and
neglected, now seasonably revived for the increase of piety. Others conceived them ground-
ed on a wrong bottom, but because they tended to the manifest advance of religion it was
pity to oppose them, seeing none have just reason to complain being deceived into their own
good. But a third sort flatly fell out with these positions, as galling men's necks with a Jew-
joe/.- Plainly laid forth and soundly proved by testimonies both of Holy Scripture and also of
old and new Ecclesiastical Writers, Fathers and Councils, and Laws of all sorts, both civil,
canon, and common. Declaring Jirst from what things God would have us straitly to rest
upon the Lord's day, and then by what means we ought publicly and privately to sanctify
the same. Together with the sundry Abuses of men in both these kinds, and how they ought
to be reformed. Divided into two Books by NICOLAS BOWND, Doctor of Divinity ; and now
by him the second time perused, and enlarged with an Interpretation of sundry points belong-
ing to the Sabbath, and a more ample proof of such things as have been gainsaid or doubted
of by some divines of our time, and a more full Answer unto certain objections made against
the same: with some other things not impertinent to this argument.' London, 1606, 4to, pp.
479. Having been unable to obtain this rare work, I copied the title from Robert Cox, The
Literature of the Sabbath Question (in 2 vols. Edinb. 1 865), Vol. I. p. 145. There is a copy
in the Bodleian Library, and another in the library of the University of Edinburgh. Cox
himself is opposed to the Puritan theory, and holds the Church of England responsible for
originating it by requiring the fourth commandment to be read and responded to in the Lit-
urgy. Of Bownd's book he says: 'In the treatise bearing this long title the Sabbatarian
opinions of the Puritans, which afterwards found more precise expression in the Westminster
Confession and Catechisms, and are now maintained by the Evangelical sects in this country,
were for the first time broadly and prominently asserted in Christendom.' Puller gives a full
account of the contents, Vol. V. pp. 21 1 sqq. His editor, Brewer, says that Bownd's book * is
written in a truly Christian spirit, and ought by no means to be considered as the fruit of Pu-
ritan principles/ The accounts of Collier (Bed. Hist. Vol. VII. pp. 182 sqq.), Neal (Vol.
I. pp. 208 sq.), and Hesse (Sunday, pp. 276 sqq.) are drawn from Puller.
1 Quoted by Hessey, p. 28 1.
§ 95. ANALYSIS OF fHE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION.
ish yoke, against the liberty of Christians : that Christ, as Lord of the Sabbath, had removed
the rigor thereof, and allowed men lawful recreations; that this doctrine put an unequal
lustre on the Sunday, on set purpose to eclipse all other holy days, to the derogation of the
authority of the Church ; that the strict observance was set up out of faction to lu% a charac-
ter of difference, to brand all for libertines who did not entertain it.' 1
The Puritan Sabbath theory was denounced and assailed by the
rising school of Iligh-Churchisin as a Sabbatarian heresy and a cun-
ningly concealed attack on the authority of the Church of England, by
substituting the Jewish Sabbath for the Christian Sunday and all the
Church festivals.2 Attempts were made by Archbishop Whitgift in
1599, and by Chief Justice Popham in 1600, to suppress BowiicTs book
and to destroy all the copies, but ;the more it was called in the more
it was called on ;' its price was doubled, and ' though the book's wings
were clipped from flying abroad in print, it ran the faster from friend
to friend in transcribed copies, and the Lord's day, in most places, was
most strictly observed. The more liberty people were offered, the less
they used it. ... It was sport for them to refrain from sports Scarce
any comment, catechism, or controversy was set forth by the stricter
divines, wherein this doctrine (the diamond in this ring) was not largely
pressed and proved 5 so that, as one saith, the Sabbath itself had no
rest.'3
At last King James I. brought his royal authority to bear against
the Puritan Sabbatarianism so called, and issued the famous * Book
of Sports,' May 24, 1618, which was afterwards republished, with an
additional order, by his son, Charles L, no doubt by advice of Arch-
bishop Laud, Oct. 18, 1633.4 This curious production formally author-
1 Vol.V. pp. 214sqq.
3 Tho chief writers against the Puritan theory were THOMAS ROGKRB, Bancroft's chaplain
(in his Preface to the Articles) ; and afterwards Bishop WHITE of Ely (A Treatise of the
Sabbath-Day . . . against Sabbatarian Novelty, Lond. 1035); PKTKK HKYLIN, Laud's chap-
lain (T/)f, History of the Sabbath, Lond. 2d ed. IMG); and Dr, JOHN POCKUNGTON (Sun-
dtnj no Sabbath, Lond. 1G30). See extracts from their works by Cox, 1. c. Vol. I. pp. 100
sqq. White and Ileylin wrote at tlie request of Laud. Bishop Prideaux (1C22), Bishop
Oosin (1085), and Dr. Young (1 039) took a more moderate view, Kichard Baxter (1G71),
though strongly leaning to the Puritanic side, tried to mediate between the strict Sabbath
theory and the ecclesiastical Sunday theory, and maintained the joyous rather than the pen-
itential character of the Lord's day. See Hessey, pp. 288 sq.
3 Fuller, pp. 218, 219.
* Of the first edition no copy is known to exist. Tho second edition, of which a copy is
preserved in the British Museum, benrs the title : * THE KINGS | Maiestics \ Declaration to \
His Suhjec.ts, \ CONOEHNIW* | law/bit SPOUTS to \ bee med. \ Imprinted at LONDON by \ Rob-
ert Barker, Printer to the Kings \ most Excellent Maiestif And by \ the Assiynes of John
t80 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
izes and commends the desecration of the evening of the Lord's da}'
by dancing, leaping, fencing, and other < lawful recreations,' on condi-
tion of observing the earlier part by strict outward conformity to the
worship of the Church of England.1 The professed object of this in-
dulgence to the common people was to check the progress of the
Papists and Puritans (or ' Precisians '), and to make ' the bodies more
able for war' when his majesty should have ' occasion to use them.'
The court set the example of desecration by balls, masquerades, and
plays on Sunday evening ; and the rustics repaired from the house of
worship to the ale-house or the village green to dance around the May-
pole and to shoot at butts. To complete the folly, King James ordered
the book to be read in every parish church, and threatened clergy-
men who refused to do so with severe punishment. King Charles re-
peated the order. But in both cases it became the source of great
trouble and confusion.2 Several bishops disapproved of it. Arch-
bishop Abbot (the Puritan predecessor of Laud) flatly forbade it to be
read at Croydon. The Lord Mayor of London commanded the king's
own carriages to be stopped as they were passing through the city on
| 3VT. DC. XXXIII.' 4to, 24 pp. This edition has been reprinted on tinted paper, in
exact imitation of the original, at London (Bernard Quaritch), 15 Piccadilly, 1860. The
Long Parliament, in 1643, ordered the book to be burned by the common hangman, in
Cheapside and other places.
1 * Our expresse pleasure therefore is, that ... no lawfull Recreation shall bee barred to
Our good People, which shall not tend to the breach of Our aforesayd Lawes, and Canons
of Our Church : which to expresse more particularly, Our pleasure is, That the Bishop, and
all other inferiour Churchmen, and Churchwardens, shall for their parts bee carefull and dili-
gent, both to instruct the ignorant, and co.nuince and reforme them that are mis-led in Re-
ligion, presenting them that will not conforme themselues, but obstinately stand out to Our
ludges and lustices : Whom We likewise command to put the Law in due execution against
them.
* Our pleasure likewise is, That the Bishop of that Diocesse take the like straight order
with all the Puritanes and Precisians within the same, either constraining them to conforme
themselues, or to leaue the Country according to the Lawes of Our Kingdome, and Canons
of Our Church, and so to strike equally on both hands, against the contemn ers of Our Au-
thority, and aduersaries of Our Church. And as for Our good peoples lawfull Recreation,
Our pleasure likewise is, That after the end of Diuine Peruice, Our good people be not dis-
turbed, letted, or discouraged from any lawfull recreation, Such as daunting, either men or
women, Archery for men, leaping, vaulting, or any other such harmelesse Recreation, nor
from hauing of May-Games, Whitson Ales, and Morris-dances, and the setting vp of May-
poles & other sports therewith vsed, so as the same be had in due & conuenient time, with-
out impediment or neglect of Diuine Seruice.' — Book of Sports, pp. 8 sqq.
2 Fuller says (Vol. V. p. 452) : * When this declaration was brought abroad, it is not so
hard to believe as sad to recount what grief and distraction thereby was occasioned in many
Honest men's hearts.'
§ 93. ANALYSIS OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 781
a Sunday. James raged and swore, and countermanded the prohibi-
tion. The Lord Mayor yielded, with this answer : ' While I was in
my power I did my duty, but that being taken away, it is my duty to
obey.' Some clergymen, after reading the book from the pulpit, fol-
lowed it up by a sermon against it, or by reading the fourth command-
ment— 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy' — and added,
' This is the law of God, the other the injunction of man.' Those who
refused to read the royal Book of Sports were suspended from office
and benefice, or even excommunicated by Laud and his sympathizing
fellow-bishops.1 Many left England, and joined
4 The pilgrim bands, who crossed the sea to keep
Their Sabbaths in the eye of God alone,
In his wide temple of the wilderness.'
This persecution of conscientious ministers for obeying God rather
thaii men gave moral strength to the cause of Sabbath observance,
and rooted it deeper in the affections of the people. It was one of
the potent causes which overwhelmed Charles and Land in common
ruin. The sober and serious part of the nation were struck with a
kind of horror that they should be invited by the highest authorities
in Church and State to destroy the effect of public worship by a dese-
cration of a portion of the day consecrated to religion.
On the Sunday question Puritanism achieved at last a permanent
triumph, and left its trace upon the Church of England and Scotland,
which reappeared after the licentious period of the Restoration. Tor,
although the Church of England, as a body, never committed itself to
the Puritan Sabbath theory, it adopted at least the practice of a much
stricter observance than had previously obtained under Elizabeth and
the Stuarts, and would never exchange it for the Continental laxity,
with itft disastrous effects upon the attendance at public worship and
the morals of the people.
The Westminster Confession, without entering into details or sanc-
tioning the incidental excesses of the Puritan practice, represents the
Christian rest-day under its threefold aspect: (1) as a divine law of
1 Pryntic fwys : ' How many hundred godly ministers have been suspended from their min-
istry, sequestered, driven from their livings, excommunicated, prosecuted in the High Com-
mission, and forced to leave the kingdom, for not puhlishing this declaration, is experiment*
ally known to all men.' For particulars, see Neal, Vol. I. pp. 312 sqq.
782 THE CEEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM,
nature (jus diwnum naturale], rooted in the constitution of man, and
hence instituted (together with marriage) at the creation, in the state
of innocence, for the perpetual benefit of body and soul; (2) as a pos-
itive moral law (jus divinum positivum), given through Moses, with
reference to the primitive institution ('Remember') and to the typical
redemption of Israel from bondage ; (3) as the commemoration of the
new creation and finished redemption by the resurrection of Christ ;
hence the change from the last to the first day of the week, and its
designation 'the Lord's day' (dies Dominica). And it requires the
day to be wholly devoted to the exercises of public and private worship
and the duties of necessity and rnercy.
To this doctrine and practice the Presbyterian, Congregational, and
other Churches in Scotland, England, and America have faithfully
adhered to this day. Tea, twenty-seven years before it was formu-
lated by the learned divines of Westminster, the Pilgrim Fathers of
America had transplanted both theory and practice first to Holland,
and, finding them unsafe there, to the wild soil of New England. Two
days after their landing from the Mayflower (Dec. 22, 1620), forgetting
the pressing necessities of physical food and shelter, the dreary cold of
winter, the danger threatening from wild beasts and roaming savages,
they celebrated their first Sunday in America on a barren rock and
under the stormy sky of heaven, and, in the exercise of the general
priesthood of believers, they offered the sacrifices of contrite hearts and
the praises of devout lips to their God and Saviour, on his own appoint-
ed day of holy rest ; not dreaming that they were the bearers of the
hopes and destinies of a mighty future and the founders of a republic
stretching across a continent and embracing millions of intelligent
Christian freemen.1
The political articles of the Confession touching the power of the
civil magistrate and the relation of Church and State will be discussed
hereafter (§ 97) in connection with the subject of religious toleration
and the changes which have been introduced in later editions.
1 Comp. my essay on the Anglo-American Sabbath, New York, 1863.
§ 96. THE WESTMINSTER CATECHISMS. 783
§ 96. THE WESTMINSTER CATECHISMS.
EDITIONS.
The Humble \ ADVICE | of the \ ASSEMBLY | of \ DIVINES, | Now "by Authority of Parliament \ sitting at
WESTMINSTER; | Concerning \ A LARQKB CATKOIIISM : | Presented by them lately to both House* \ of Parlia*
ment. \ Printed at London [Oct. 1647, without Scripture proofs], and reprinted at Edinburgh, by Evan
Tyler, Printer to the King's moat Excellent Majestic, 1647 [Dec.]. The Edinburgh reprint has fifty-six
pages, and no Scripture proofs. See fac-simile in Vol. III. p. 674. Of the London editio princeps, six
hundred copies were printed, but not published, by order of Parliament, for its own use. Of the Edin-
burgh editio princeps, eight hundred copies were ordered by the General Assembly, Dec. 23, 1647. The
second eel., which appeared in London [after April 14, 1648], contains the proofs from Scripture.
The Shorter Catechism appeared under the same title (except Shorter for Larger) a little later [after
Nov. 25, 16471, by order of Parliament. Mr. John Laiug, the obliging librarian of the Free Church College
in Edinburgh, informs me that both Catechisms appeared in one vol. of seventy-nine pages, at Edin-
burgh, Dec. 23, 1647, with a general title and a separate title for each. A statement to the same effect I
see in the Advertisement to Dunlop's Collection of Confessions, Vol. I. p. clviii., with the additional re-
mark that this edition was sent to the Presbyteries for examination.
The Larger and Shorter Catechisms often appeared in connection with the Westminster Confession,
and exist in innumerable English and American editions, especially the Shorter. The textual varia-
tions are insignificant, except that the American (General Assembly'*)) editions of the Larger Catechism
omit the words * tolerating a false religion ' in the answer to Question 109.
I have made use of the first Edinb. ed., and a large London ed. of 1658, which contains the Conf.
and both Catechisms under their original (three separate) titles (The Humble Advice, etc.), with the
Scripture proofs in full. Opposite the special title of the Shorter Catechism is the order of Parliament,
dated 'Die Lunae 15. Septemb., 1648,' directing that the Shorter Cjitechism 'be forthwith printed and
published, wherein Mr. HTCNIIY ROBOROUGU and Mr. ADONIBAM BY FIELD, Scribes of the Assembly of
Divines, are requested to use all possible care and diligence.'
The Catechisms have been trauelated into many languages, especially the Shorter. A Latin version
appeared, together with the version of the Confession, in Cambridge, 1C56, as has been noted above,
p. 758. The Latin text of the Shorter Catechism is printed in Vol. Ill, pp. 676 sqq. For a German
version of both, see BOOKBL, pp. 716 sqq. A Greek version of the Shorter Catechism (with the Latin), by
JOIIN HARM AH (Regius Professor of Greek in Oxford), was published at London, 1660; a new one by
ROBBUT YOUNG (»j Karfjxw! o-i/vTo/uwrepa), Edinburgh, 1B54. A Hebrew version by G. SEAMAN, M.D.
(London, 1080), and another by H. 3. MoKxa (Ediub. 1854; Dublin, 1804). Also Syriac, Arabic, modern
Greek, Portuguese, Welsh, and other versions.
The largest number of editions and translations are to be found, as far as I know, in the British
Museum.
EXPOSITIONS.
THOMAS LYE (Minister in London, d. 1684) : An Explanation of the Shorter Catechism. London, 1676.
HUGH BINNING (d. 16153, Prot of Moral Philos., Glasgow) : The Common Principles of the Christian R&
ligion. . . . A Practical Catechism. 1671.
TIJOMAH VINOKNT (Minister in London, d.1671): An Explanation of the Assembly's Shorter Catechism.
London, 1708; Edinb, 1799; Presbyterian Board of Publication, Philadelphia.
THOMAS WATSON (Minister in London, d. 1690) : A My of Practical Divinity ', consisting of above 176
Sermon* on the Shorter CatecMsm. 6th cd. Glasgow, 1797 ; Lond. 1S07 ; Glasgow, 1888 ; N. Y. 1836.
JOHN FI,AVKT, (b.1627, d.1691): fixportt'hn of the Catetfiitm, 1692. In his Whole Works, 2 vols, fol,
1701, 7th <ul. Edinb. 1762; and In 6 vols. London, 1820.
TIIOM AS KIIXI T*KY (b, 1667, d. 1784) : A Body of JDfvfnity . . . fleintj the Substance of Lectures on the Assem-
bly's Larger CatecM^m. London, 1781-88, 2 vols, fol. ; an ed. in 4 vols. 8vo, 1814 ; Edinb, 1845, 2 vols. 8vo;
Now York, 1855.
SAMUML WiLtABD (i>. 1640, d. 1707): A forty of Divinity in 250 Lectures on the Aw&mbltfs Catechism.
1 vol. fol. BoBton, 1720.
JOHN WILLISON (Minister of Dundee from 1718 to 1750) : An Example of Plain Catechising upon the
Assembly's Shorter Catechism. Bdiub. 1787 ; 2d eel. Glasgow, 1764.
FXRBKB'S CATECHISM: The Westminster Asntmbly's Shorter Catechism Explained, by-way of question, and
answer. J3y some Ministers of the Gospel. Tho authors are RALPH EUSKINK (d. 1752), BBKNEZKR ERBKINE
(d. 1754), and JAMBS FISUKE (d, Sept. 28, 1775, Secession Minister at Grey friars, Glasgow). Fisher prepared
the second part alone, and issued the third ed. Glasgow, 1758, Hence the whole work is called by his
name. 14th ed. Bdiub. 1800 ; 17th ed. Glasgow, 1818 ; also by the Board of Publication, Philadelphia.
JOHN BROWN (Minister at Haddington from 1751 to 1787) : Easy Explication of the Assembly's Shorter
Catechism. 8th ed. Edinb. 1812 ; 9th ed. Montrose, 1822.
HENRY BELPUAQE (d, 1885) : A Practical Exposition of the Assembly's Shorter Catechism, exhibiting a Sys-
tem of Theology in a Popular Form. Edinb. 2d ed. 1884. 2 vols.
ALKX. MAIB (d. 1751) : A Brief Explication of the Assembly's Shorter Catechism. Now ed. Montr oae, 1837.
T84: THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
ALBX. SMITH PATKRSON: A Concise System of Theology: "being the Shorter Catechism Analyzed and Ex*
plained. Edinb. 1841 ; 3d ed. 18M.
ASHBEL QBBBN, B.D, (President of Princeton College from 1812 to 1822; d. 1848): Lectures on the
Shorter Catechism. Phila. 1841, 2 vols., Presbyt. Board of Publ.
JONATHAN CROSS : Illustration* of the Shorter Catechivm. Proof -texts, Exposition, and Anecdotes. 2 vols.
18mo. Presbyt. Board of Publ.
EDWIN HALL, D.D. : The Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Assembly, with Analysis and Scripture
Proofs. Presbyt. Board of Publ.
JAMBS E. BOYD, D.D.: The Westminster Shorter Catechism; with Analysis, Proofs, Explanations, and
Illustrative Anecdotes. 18mo. Presbyt. Board of Publ.
The Belief onte Series of Tracts on the Answers to the Shorter Catechism, written by numerous Presby-
terian ministers, and edited by the Rev. WM. T. WYLIB. Bellefonte, Pa. 18T5.
PREPARATION AND ADOPTION.
Simultaneously with the Confession, the Assembly prepared first
one, and afterwards two Catechisms : a larger one for public expo-
sition in the pulpit, according to the custom of the Reformed Church-
es on the Continent, and a smaller one for the instruction of children,
a clear and condensed summary of the former.1 Both are amply pro-
vided with Scripture proofs. The questions of Church polity and
discipline are properly omitted.
The Catechisms were finished and presented to Parliament for ex-
amination and approval in the autumn of 1647.2 Parliament ordered
six hundred copies to be printed, and then examined and approved the
Catechisms, with some slight exceptions (Sept 15, 1648). The General
Assembly at Edinburgh adopted the Larger Catechism, July 20, 1648,
and the Shorter Catechism, July 28, declaring both to be ' agreeable to
the Word of God, and in nothing contrary to the received doctrine,
worship, discipline, and government of this Kirk.' These acts were
approved by the Scottish Parliament, Feb. 7, 1649, but repealed under
Charles II. in 1661. When the Scottish Parliament, in 1690, estab-
lished Presbyterian government in Scotland, and ratified the West-
minster Confession of Faith, no express mention was made of the
Catechisms, but both continued in ecclesiastical use, and the Shorter
1 The first Catechism of the Assembly, according to Baillie, was nearly agreed on at the
end of 1644, but was never published. Perhaps it was the same which is partially inserted in
the Minutes ; or it may have been the MS. Catechism of Sam. Rutherford, which is pre-
served in the University library at Edinburgh. In the 774th session, Jan. 14, 1 647 (old style,
3646), the Assembly ordered ' that the Committee for the Catechism do prepare a draught of
two Catechisms, one more large and another more brief, in which they are to have an eye to
the Confession of Faith, and to the matter of the Catechism already begun* (Minutes, p. 321).
2 Both Catechisms were first presented to Parliament without Scripture proofs, the Larger
before Oct. 25, 1647, the Shorter on Nov. 25, 1647 (Minutes, pp. 485, 486, 492), and were
forthwith printed in London and Edinburgh. The Catechisms with Scripture proofs werft
presented to Parliament on .or bjefore April 14, 1648 (Minutes, j>. 511).
§ 9tf. THE WESTMINSTER CATECHISMS. 785
Catechism was often earnestly enjoined upon ministers, teachers, and
parents by the General Assembly.1
GENERAL CHARACTER.
The two Catechisms are, in the language of a Scotch divine, c inim-
itable as theological summaries ; though, when it is considered that
to comprehend them would imply an acquaintance with the whole
circle of dogmatic and controversial divinity, it may be doubted wheth-
er either of them is adapted to the capacity of childhood. . . . Experi-
ence has shown that few who have been carefully instructed in our
Shorter Catechism have failed to discover the advantage of becoming
acquainted in early life, even as a task, with that admirable "form of
sound words." ' 2
Both Catechisms have the peculiarity that each answer embodies
the question, and thus forms a complete proposition or sentence in
itself.
Both depart from the catechetical tradition by omitting the Apos-
tles' Creed, which in other orthodox Catechisms is the common histor-
ical basis of the exposition of the Articles of Faith. It is, however,
annexed to the Shorter Catechism, c not as though it were composed
by the Apostles or oiight to be esteemed canonical Scripture, as the
Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer, but because it is a brief
sum of the Christian faith, agreeable to the Word of God, and ancient-
ly received in the Churches of Christ.' A note is attached to the arti-
cle on the descent into Hell (better. Hades or Sheol), to the effect that
it simply means Christ £ continued in the state of the dead and under
the power of death until the third day.' This explanation (like that
of Calvin and the Heidelberg Catechism) misses the true sense of
the descent, and ignores its peculiar significance in the work of re-
demption for the world of the departed (corap. Luke xxiii. 43 ; Acts
ii. 31 ; Eph. iv. 8, 9 ; 1 Cor. xv. 55, 57 ; 1 Pet iii. 18, 19 ; iv. 6 ; Kev. i
1 Mitchell, Minutes, p. 515, note. Innes (Law of Crwds, p. 105) fifiyfi: "The Shorter
Catechism has been for many generations the real creed of Scotland, so fur as the mass of
the people is concerned.'
3 M'Crie, Annals, pp. 1 77 sq. Neal (Vol. II. p. 42) judges similarly. 'The Larger Cate-
chism,' he says, 'is a comprehensive system of divinity, and the smaller a very accurate sum-
mary, though it has hy some been thought a little too long, and in some particulars too ab-
struse for tfcp xsa»acities of children*1 Baillie was of the same opinion (Letters, III. 69).
786 THE CBEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
18). The eschatology of the Keformation standards is silent or de-
fective on the middle state, and most Protestant versions of the Bible
confound Sell and Hades, which represent separate and distinct though
cognate ideas.
THE LARGER CATECHISM.
The Larger Catechism occupied, as the Minutes show, a good deal
of the Assembly's attention daring the year 1647, and was discussed
question by question. It was prepared before the Shorter.1 It is
chiefly the work of Dr. Anthony Tuckney, Professor of Divinity and
Vice-Chancellor at Cambridge.2 It is a masterpiece of catechetical
skill, superior to any similar work, and exhibits in popular form a
complete system of divinity, like the Eoman Catechism and the Long-
er Russian Catechism of Philaret. It also serves in part as a valuable
commentary or supplement to the Confession, especially on the ethical
part of our religion. But it is over-minute in the specification of what
God has commanded and forbidden in the Ten Commandments, and
loses itself in a wilderness of details.3
THE SHORTER CATECHISM.
Dr. Tuckney was also the convener of the Committee which pre-
pared the Shorter Catechism, but its concise and severely logical an-
1 This appears from the Minutes, p. 410. The report on the Shorter Catechism was first
called for in the 896th session, Aug. 9, 1647. Mr. Palmer reported, and Messrs. Calamy
and Gower were added to the Committee. The opposite view is clearly wrong, though advo-
cated by Neal (Vol. II. p. 42), and even quite recently by Dr. M'Crie, who says (Annals, p.
177): 'The Larger Catechism was not prepared till some time after the Shorter, of which it
was evidently intended to form an amplification and exposition.'
9 It is based in part on Ussher's catechetical Body of Divinity, perhaps also on the con-
cise theological compendium of John Wolleb, Antistes at Basle (1626).
3 Take for example Question 113 :
* What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment*
' The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God's name as is re-
quired ; and the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane, superstitious, or wicked
mentioning, or otherwise using his titles, attributes, ordinances, or works, by blasphemy,
perjury ; all sinful cursings, oaths, vows, and lots ; violating our oaths and vows, if lawful ;
and fulfilling them, if of things unlawful ; murmuring and quarreling at, curious prying into,
and misapplying of God's decrees and providences; misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way
perverting the Word, or any part of it, to profane jests, curious or unprofitable questions, vain
janglings, or the maintaining of false doctrines ; abusing it, the creatures, or any thing con-
tained under the name of God, to charms or sinful lusts and practices ; the maligning, scorn-
ing, reviling, or any wise opposing God's truth, grace, and ways ; making profession of re-
ligion in hypocrisy or for sinister ends j being ashamed of it, or a shame to it, by uncomfornv
able, unwise, unfruitful, and offensive walking or backsliding from it/
§ 06. THE WESTMINSTER CATECHISMS. 787
swers are traced to the Rev. John Wallis, M.A., an eminent mathema-
tician, who as a young man fresh from Cambridge was appointed an
amanuensis of the Assembly.1 He afterwards became Professor of
Geometry at Oxford and one of the founders of the Royal Society.
He was probably the last survivor of the Westminster divines, for he
died 1703, aet. eighty-eight.2 Grillespie's name is traditionally con-
nected with the question ; What is God ?' lie is said to have an-
swered it in prayer, apparently without meditation, when the Assem-
bly were in suspense for words to define the Being of beings. But
the Scotch Commissioners had little to do with the Shorter Catechism,
as most of them had left before it was discussed in the Assembly.3
The Shorter Catechism is one of the three typical Catechisms of
Protestantism which are likely to last to the end of time. It is fully
equal to Luther's and to the Heidelberg Catechism in ability and influ-
ence, it far surpasses them in clearness and careful wording, and is
better adapted to the Scotch and Anglo-American mind, but it lacks
their genial warmth, freshness, and childlike simplicity.4 It substi-
tutes a logical scheme for the historical order of the Apostles' Creed.
It deals in dogmas rather than facts. It addresses the disciple as an
interested outsider rather than avs a church-member growing up in the
nurture of the Lord. Its mathematical precision in definitions, some
of which are almost perfect.,5 though above the capacity of the child,
is a good preparation for the study of theology. . Its use among three
denominations (Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Regular Bap-
tists) proves its solid worth. Baxter called it ' the best Catechism he
ever saw, a most excellent sum of the Christian faith and doctrine, and
a fit test to try the orthodoxy of teachers.3 Thomas Carlyle, in speaking
against modern materialism, made this confession (1876): 'The older
I grow — and I now stand upon the brink of eternity — the more comes
back to me the first sentence in the Catechism which I learned when
a child, and the fuller and deeper Its meaning becomes : " What is the
chief end of man? To glorify God, and to enjoy him forever."'
1 In the Minutes, p. 488, Wallis is mentioned in connection with the Shorter Catechism.
He published an exposition of it. a Masson's Milton, Vol. II. p. 515.
1 The Scotch Commissioners took leave Dec. 25, 1C4G. The last mention of them is Nov. 9,
1647, when Rutherford took his leave. — Minutes, pp. 471 , 487. Dr. Mitchell informs me that
the fourth quewtion is probably derived from ' A Compendious Catechism' (by J. F.), printed
at London iu April, 1(>45: 'God is a Spirit, One, Almighty, Eternal, Infinite, Unchangeable
Being, Absolutely Holy, Wise, Ju«r, and Good.'
* For a fuller comparison, see pp. 543-515. * For example, Questions 4, 21, 02.
788 THE CHEEPS OF CHRISTENDOM.
§ 97. CRITICISM OF THE WESTMINSTER SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE.
The Westminster Confession, together with the Catechisms, is the
fullest and ripest symbolical statement of the Calvinistic system of
doctrine. In theological ability and merit it is equal to the best works
of the kind, and is not surpassed by the Lutheran Formula of Con-
cord or the Roman Decrees of the Councils of Trent and the Vatican.
Its intrinsic worth alone can explain the fact that it has supplanted
the older Scottish standards of John Knox and John Craig in the land
of their birth, and that it was adopted by three distinct denominations :
by the Presbyterians in full, and by the Congregationalists and the
Eegular Baptists with some slight modifications. Of these the Con-
gregationalists had but a small though very able representation in the
Westminster Assembly, the Baptists none at all. It has at this day as
much vitality as any of the Protestant symbols and more vitality than
most of them. It materially aids in shaping theological thought and
religious activity as far as the English tongue prevails. Altogether it
represents the most vigorous and yet moderate form of Calvinism,
which has found (like Christianity itself) a more congenial and per-
manent home in the Anglo-Saxon race than in the land of its birth.
The doctrines of the Confession are stated with unusual care, log-
ical precision, clearness, caution, and circumspection, and with an eye
to all their various aspects and mutual relations. Where they seem to
conflict or can not be harmonized by our finite intelligence — as absolute
sovereignty and free agency, the fall of Adam and personal guilt, the
infinite divinity and the finite humanity of Christ — both truths are set
forth, and room is left for explanations and adjustments by scientific
theology within the general limits of the system. The important dif-
ference between a public confession of faith and a private system of
theology was at least distinctly recognized in principle, although (as we
shall see presently) not always consistently carried out.1
The style of the Confession and Catechisms is clear, strong, dignified,
and well adapted to the grave subject. The selection of Scripture
proofs is careful and judicious, and reveals a close familiarity with
the sacred writings.
1 In the debate on predestination Dr. Keynolds wisely said, *Let us not put disputes and
scholastic things into a confession of faith.'— Minutes, p. 151 -
§ 97. CRITICISM OF THE WESTMINSTER SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE. 789
The merits of the Westminster standards have been admitted not
only by Presbyterians,1 but also by liberal Episcopalians,2 and even by
Methodists, who entirely dissent from its theology.3
1 Principal Baillie wrote (Jan. 20, 1G47, Letters, Vol. III. p. 2) : ' The Confession is much
cried up by till, ere.n many of our greatest oppositas, as the best confession yet extant.' Tha
moderate and judicious Richard Baxter esteemed the Westminster Confession and Cate-
chisms the best books in his library next to the Bible, and says (in his Confession, ch. i. § 5) :
*I have perused oft the Confession of the Assembly, and verily judge it the most excel-
lent, for fullnefS and exactness, that I have ever read from any Church ; and though the
truths therein, being of several degrees of evidence and necessity, I do not hold them with
equal clearness, confidence, or certainty ; and though some few points in it are beyond my
reach, yet I have observed nothing in it contrary to my judgment, if I may be allowed those
expositions following.' The saintly Archbishop Leigh ton, though he left the Church for
which his father had suffered such cruelties from Laud, taught the doctrine of the Confession
to the end of his life.
2 J. B. Marsden (The History of the Later Puritans, 1852, pp. 80, 81), while judging se-
verely of the Assembly on account of its treatment of Episcopacy, thinks the Westminster
Confession inferior to none of the Protestant Confessions except in originality, and adds :
* It does not, however, detract from the real merit of these later divines, that they availed
themselves of the labors of the Information; or that Bullinger and Calvin, especially the lat-
ter, should have left them little to accomplish, except in the way of arrangement and com-
pression. The Westminster Confession should be read by those who can not encounter the
more ponderous volumes of the great masters from which it is derived. It is in many re-
spects au admirable summary of Christian faith and practice. None can lay it down with a
mean opinion of the Westminster divines. The style is pure and good, the proofs are select-
ed with admirable skill, the arguments are always clear, the subjects well distributed, and
sufficiently comprehensive to form at least the outline of a perfect system of divinity.' It is
but just to add that Marsden goes on to censure what he calls its * rigid ultra-Calvinism,
which has always repelled the great majority of English Christians.' Dean Stanley, who has
no theological sympathy with the Westminster Confession, says that of all Protestant Con-
fessions * it far more nearly approaches the full proportions of a theological treatise, and ex-
hibits far more de.plh of thf.ohgic.nl insiyht, than any other.1 lie adds, however, that 4it re-
flects also far more than any other the minute hair-splitting and straw-dividing distinctions
which had reached their height in the Puritanical theology of that age, and which in sermons
ran into the sixteenthly, seven teenthly sections that so exercised the soul of Dugald Dalgetty
as he waited for the conclusion of the discourse in the chapel of Inverary Castlo, It accord-
ingly furnished the food for which the somewhat hard and logical intellect of Scotland had a
special appetite* (Lwturas on the Jlwtory of the Church of Scotland, delivered in 1872,
Am. ed. p. 8K). Tn another place Stanley calls the Westminster formulary 'that famous
Confession of Faith which, alone within these islands, was imposed by law on the whole
kingdom ; and which, alono of all Protestant Confessions, still, in spite of its sternness and
narrowness, retains a hold on the minds of its adherents, to which its fervor and its logical
coherence in some measure entitle it ' (Memorials of Westminster Abbey, p. 513).
3 Dr. Currey, for many years editor of the * Methodist Advocate,' of New York, in an ed-
itorial on Creeds (Aug. 0, 1874), calls 'the Westminster Confession of Faith the ablest, dear-
est, and most comprehensive, system of CJirintiav doctrine eve? framed. That venerable in-
strument purposely embodies in its unity the dogma of absolute predestination, which neces-
sarily becomes the corner-stone of the edifice, so giving it shape and character. But, despite
that capital fault, it is not only a wonderful monument of the intellectual greatness of its
framers, but a comprehensive embodiment of nearly all the precious truths of the gospel.
If set forth without ecclesiastical authority, for the edification of believers, it would, despite
790 THE CEEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
DEFECTS.
The Westminster standards, like all human productions, including
the translations of the Bible itself, have imperfections.
The great revival of the sixteenth century was followed in the Ee-
formed and Lutheran Churches by a dry scholasticism which was more
biblical arid evangelical than the mediaeval scholasticism, but shared
with it the defects of a one-sided intellectualism to the exclusion of
the mystic and emotional types of Christianity. Scholasticism in the
technical sense — whether Eoman Catholic or Protestant — is the prod-
uct of the devout understanding rather than the glowing heart, and
approaches the deepest mysteries of faith, such as the Trinity, the In-
carnation, the eternal decrees of election and reprobation of men and
angels, with profound reverence indeed, yet with a boldness and assur-
ance as if they were mathematical problems or subjects of anatomical
dissection.1 It shows usually a marvelous dexterity in analysis, division,
subdivision, distinction, and definition, but it lacks the intuition into
the hidden depths and transcending heights where the antagonisms of
partial truths meet in unity.
The Westminster standards do not go so far in this direction as the
Canons of Dort or the Helvetic Consensus Formula, but certainly fur-
ther than the Reformation symbols, which are less logical and precise,
and more fresh and elastic. They reflect the hard severity of Puritan-
ism. They embody too much metaphysical divinity, and overstep the
limits which divide a public confession of faith from a scientific treatise
of theology. It would be impossible nowadays to pass such an elabo-
rate system through any Protestant ecclesiastical body with a view to
its faults, be a work of inestimable worth ; but enforced by such authority, and imposed
upon men's consciences, it is a yoke and a chain and a cage of iron. And yet this is the ac-
cepted formula of faith of nearly all the Calvinistic Churches of America. Even the Oon-
gregationalists in National Council, at Plymouth Kock, only a few years ago, reaffirmed
their acceptance of it.'
1 Dr. Wallis, the mathematician, who is said to be the chief author of the sharp definitions
of the Shorter Catechism (see p. 786), wrote towards the close of the seventeenth century a
pamphlet in defense of the doctrine of the Trinity against rising Unitarmnism, where he com-
pares the Almighty to a cube with its length, breadth, and height infinitely extended, longum,
latum, profundum, which are the equal sides of one substance, and fairly resemble the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost. He finds nothing njysterions in this doctrine. 'It is,' he says, 'but
this, that there be three somewhctts, which are but one God, and these somewhats are called
Persons/ Quoted by Stoughton, The Church of the Revolution, p. 213.
§ 97. CRITICISM OF THE WESTMINSTER SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE. 791
impose it upon all teachers of religion. The Confession, however,
as already mentioned, was not intended as a yoke by the English
framers, nor has subscription ever been required to all its details, but
only to the general scheme. The Bible is expressly declared by Cal-
vinists to be ' the only infallible rule of faith and practice,3 and the
Confession is adopted f as containing the system of doctrine taught in
the holy Scriptures.' l
The chief characteristics of Calvinistic scholasticism as it prevailed
in the seventeenth century are that it starts from God's sovereignty
and justice rather than from God's love and mercy, and that it makes
the predestinarian scheme to control the historical and christological
scheme. This brings us to the most assailable point in the Westmin-
ster Confession and Larger Catechism, the abstract doctrine of eternal
decrees, which will always repel a large portion of evangelical Christen-
dom. We believe that the divine-human person and work of Christ
furnish the true key to the full understanding of the plan of salvation
and the solid platform for the ultimate agreement of all evangelical
creeds.
PRETEEITION OF THE REST OF MANKIND.
Absolute predestinarianism is the strength and the weakness of Cal-
vinism. The positive decree of eternal election is its impregnable
fort, the negative decree of, eternal reprobation its Achilles' heel.
Predestination to holiness and happiness, being a gracious purpose of
God's love, is full of c sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to god-
ly persons,'2 and affords ' matter of praise, reverence, and admiration
of God, and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all
that sincerely obey the gospel.' 3 Predestination to death and damna-
tion, being a judicial decree of God's wrath on account of Adam's fall,
is — whether true or false — a 'decretum horribile* (as Calvin himself
significantly calls it, in view of the apparent ruin of whole nations
with their offspring), and ought never to be put into a creed or con-
fession of the Church, but should be left to the theology of the school.
Hence it is wisely omitted by the Heidelberg Catechism, the Helvetic
1 This is the American formula of subscription required from ministers. On the Scottish
subscription formulae?, «ee Tnnes, pp. CO, 81, 84, 103, 453.
* Articles of the Church of England, Art. XV IT.
3 Westm. Oonf. Oh. VUI. § 8. This lust section is the best in the whole chapter,
VOL. I. — K K K
792 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Confessions, the Thirty-nine Articles, and other Eeformed symbols.
Even the old Scotch Confession of John Knox does not mention it, and
the Second Scotch Confession expressly rejects, as an antichristian error,
the horrible popish doctrine of the damnation of unbaptized infants.
The Westminster Confession, it is true, carefully avoids the term
reprobation, and substitutes for it the milder idea of preterition. It
uses the verb predestinate only with reference to eternal life, while the
lost are spoken of as being ordained or judicially condemned to death.
Yet it makes the dogmatic assertion that < God was pleased, according
to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or
withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power
over his creatures, to pass by the rest of mankind, and to ordain them
to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious jus-
tice.31 Now there are indeed passages in the Old and New Testaments,
especially the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Eomans, which seem
to bear out this statement,2 but they must be interpreted in the light
of the biblical idea of a God of infinite love and mercy, and in con-
nection with other passages which in their obvious and natural sense
declare that God sincerely desires all men to repent and be saved, that
Christ is the Saviour of the world, that he is the propitiation not only
for our sins, c but also for the sins of the whole world,' and that he
condemns no one absolutely and finally except for unbelief — that is,
for the willful rejection of the gospel salvation.3 This fundamental
doctrine of God's universal love and abundant provision for the salva-
tion of all mankind should be put into a confession of faith rather
1 Ch. III. 7. This seventh section is the one dark spot, in the Confession, and mars its
beauty and usefulness. Comp. Larger Catechism, Quest. 18: * God hath passed by and fore-
ordained the rest to dishonor and wrath to be for their own sin inflicted, to the praise of the
glory of his justice.' The Shorter Catechism (Quest. 7) wisely omits the negative part of
predestination.
3 Matt. xi. 25 (' Thou hast hid these things,' etc.) ; Rom. ix. 17, 18, 21, 22 ; 2 Tim. ii. 20 ;
Jude 4 ; 1 Pet. ii. 8— all quoted in the Confession. The ninth chapter of Romans is the
exegetical bulwark of the doctrine of reprobation ; but it must be explained in connection
with the tenth chapter, which brings out the unbelief of the creature as the cause, and with
the eleventh chapter, which opens the prospect of a glorious solution of the problem in the
conversion of the fullness of the Gentiles and the people of Israel, and ends with the grand
declaration that * God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all.'
We have no more right to limit the all in the second clause than in the first. Comp. the
parallelism in Rom. v. 12 sqq.
3 John i. 29 ; iii. 16 ; iv. 24 ; 1 John ii. 2 j iii. 8, 16 j iv. 14f I Tim. ii. 4 •, Titus ii. 11 ; 2
?et. iii. 9 ; Mark xvi. 1C,
§ 97. CRITICISM OF THE WESTMINSTER SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE. 793
than the doctrine of reprobation or preterition, which is, to say the
least, as objectionable in such a document as the damning clauses in
the Athanasian Creed.
The exegetical and theological adjustment of this whole subject of
predestination, and of the unequal distribution and partial withholding
of the favors of Providence and the means of grace in this world, is
involved in insurmountable difficulties, and the contemplation of it
should make us cautious and charitable. A few general remarks may
tend to set the problem in its true light, and to open the prospect of
at least a partial solution.1
It must in fairness be admitted that the Calvinistic system only
traces undeniable facts to their first ante-mundane cause in the in-
scrutable counsel of God. It draws the legitimate logical conclusions
from such anthropological and eschatological premises as are acknowl-
edged by all other orthodox Churches, Greek, Roman, Lutheran, and
Reformed. They all teach the condemnation of the human race in con-
sequence of Adam's fall, and confine the opportunity and possibility
of salvation from sin and perdition to this present life.2 And yet every
body must admit that the vast majority of mankind, no worse by nature
than the rest, and without personal guilt, are born and grow up in
heathen darkness, out of the reach of the means of grace, and are thus,
as far as we know, actually * passed by ' in this world. "No orthodox
system can logically reconcile this stubborn and awful fact with the
universal love and impartial justice of God.
The only solution seems to lie either in the Quaker doctrine of
universal light — that is, an nncovenanted offer of salvation to all men
in this earthly life — or in an extension of the period of saving grace
beyond death till the final judgment for those (and for those only)
who never had an opportunity in this world to accept or to reject the
gospel salvation. But the former view implies a depreciation of the
visible Church, the ministry of the gospel, and the sacraments ; the
latter would require a liberal reconstruction of the traditional doctrine
1 Comp. our remarks, pp, 451 sqq.
8 The Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory is no exception, for this is confined to
members of the Catholic Church who were converted in this life hut need further purifi-
cation before they can enter heaven. The Roman creed is more pronounced than the
Greek and the Protestant on the impossibility of salvation outside of the visible Church on
tarth.
794: THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
of the middle state such as no orthodox Church, in the absence oi
clear Scripture light on this mysterious subject, and in view of proba-
ble abuse, would be willing to admit in its confessional teaching, even
if theological exegesis should be able to produce a better agreement
than now exists on certain disputed passages of the New Testament
and the doctrine of Hades.
So far, then, the only difference is that, while the other orthodox
Confessions conceal the real difficulty, Calvinism reveals it, and thus
brings it nearer to a solution.
Moreover, the Calvinistic system, by detaching election from the ab-
solute necessity of water-baptism, has a positive advantage over the
Augustinian system, and is really more liberal. All the creeds which
teach baptismal regeneration as an indispensable prerequisite of salva-
tion virtually exclude the overwhelming majority of mankind — whole
nations, with untold millions of infants dying in infancy— from the
kingdom of heaven, whether they expressly say so or not. The
Christian heart of the great African father shrunk from this fearful
but inevitable conclusion of his logical head, and tried to mitigate
it by making a distinction between positive damnation or actual suf-
fering, and negative damnation or absence of bliss, and by subjecting
mi baptized infants to the latter only. And this is the doctrine of
Eoman Catholic divines. The Calvinistic theory affords a more sub-
stantial relief, and allows, after the precedent of Zwingli and Bullin-
ger, and in accordance with the analogy of Melchisedek, Job, and
other exceptional cases of true piety under the Jewish dispensation,
an indefinite extension of God's saving grace beyond the limits of the
visible Church and the ordinary means of grace. It leaves room for the
charitable hope of the salvation of all infants dying in infancy, and
of those adults who, without an historical knowledge of Christ, live up
to the light of nature arid Providence, and die with a humble and pen-
itent longing after salvation — that is, in a frame of mind like that of
Cornelius when he sent for St. Peter.1 This was, indeed, not the pro-
fessed Calvinism of Calvin and Beza, nor of the divines of Dort and
Westminster, nor of the older divines of New England ;2 but it is con-
1 See above, p. 378.
a The Rev. Michael Wigglesworth, of Maiden, Mass., a graduate and tutor of Harvard
College (d. 1705), published a popular poem, The Day of Doom (1662j 6th ed. 1715; re-
§ 97. CRITICISM OF THE WESTMINSTER SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE. 795
sistent with the Calvinistic scheme, which never presumed to fix the
limits of divine election, and with a liberal interpretation of the West-
minster Confession, which expressly acknowledges that elect infants
and elect adults are regenerated and saved by Christ without being
outwardly called by the gospel.1
Modern Calvinism, at least in America, has decidedly taken a lib-
eral view of this subject, and freely admits at least the probability of
the universal salvation of infants, and hence the salvation of the greater
part of the human race. Christianity can not be a failure in any sense
— it must be a triumphant success, which is guaranteed from eternity
by the infinite goodness and wisdom of God.2
But whatever may be the theoretical solution of this deep and dark
mystery, there is a practical platform on which evangelical Christians
can agree, namely, that all men who are and will be saved are saved
by the free grace of God, without any merit of their own (faith itself
being a gift of grace) ; while all who are lost are lost by their own
guilt. It has often been said that pious Oalvinists preach like Ar-
minians, and pious Arminians pray like Oalvinists. In this both may
be inconsistent, but it is a happy and a useful inconsistency. The
printed ns a curiosity by the Amer. News Company, New York, 18G7), in which God reasons
on the judgment-day with reprobate infants, who *from the womb unto the tomb were
straightway carried,' about the justice of their eternal damnation; and in consideration of
their leaser guilt, assigns them (like St. Augustine) * the easiest room in hell!'
1 Oh. X. i-J : ' Klect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through
the Spirit, who worketh when and where and how he pleaseth. So are all other elect
persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.7 The
Confession nowhere speaks of reprobate infants, and the existence of such is not neces-
sarily implied by way of distinction, although it probably was in the minds of the framcrs
as their private opinion, which they wisely withheld from the Confession. I think the in-
terpretation of Dr. A. A. Hodge, of Allegheny, in his Commentary on this section (p. 240),
is fairly admissible: 'The Confession affirms what is certainly revealed, and leaves that which
revelation has not decided to remain without the suggestion of a positive opinion upon one
side or the other.11 He agrees, as to the salvation of all infants dying in infancy, with his
father, who asserts that * he never saw a Calvinistic theologian who held the doctrine of
infant damnation in any sense1 (System. TheoL, Vol. HI. p. G05).
a Dr. Hodge, of Princeton, is of the opinion, which would be preposterous in the Augustin-
ian and Roman Catholic system, that the number of those who are ultimately lost is 'very
inconsiderable as compared with the whole number of the saved.' This is the closing sentence
of his System. Y%<w/., Vol. ITT. p. 879. That the number of the saved will far exceed the
number of the lost may be fairly inferred from the Tro\\(f i&\\ov of Paul (Rom. v. l/>, 17);
but this inference can not well be harmonized with the declaration of our Lord, Matt. vii. 14-,
that but few enter the strait gate, unless we assume the universal salvation of infants, and
look forward to great progress of the gospel in the future.
796 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Calvinistic Whitefield was as zealous and successful in converting
souls as the Arminian Wesley, and Wesley was as fervent and pre-
vailing in prayer as Whitefield. They parted in this world, but they
have long since been reconciled in heaven, where they see the whole
truth face to face. We must work as if all depended on our efforts,
and we must pray as if all depended on God. This is the holy paradox
of St. Paul, who exhorts the Philippians to work out their own salva-
tion with fear and trembling, for the very reason that it is God who
worketh effectively in them both to will and to work of his own good
pleasure. God's work in us and for us is the basis and encourage-
ment of our work in him and for him.
INTOLERANCE. *
The principle of intolerance has been charged upon Chaps. XXIII.
(Of the Civil Magistrate), XXX. (Of Church Censures), XXXI. (Of
Synods and Councils), and the last clause of Oh. XX. (Of Christian
Liberty, viz., the words ' and by the power of the civil magistrate').
The same charge applies to a few words in the 109th question of the
Larger Catechism, where * tolerating a false religion' is included
among the sins forbidden in the Second Commandment with refer-
ence to some passages of the Old Testament and of the Book of
Eevelation (ii. 2, 16, 20 ; xvii. 16, 17).
There is no doubt that these passages assume a professedly Chris-
tian government, or the union of Church and State as it had come
to be established in all Christian countries since the days of Con-
stantine, and as it was acknowledged at that time by Protestants as
well as Roman Catholics.2 It is on this ground that the Confes-
sion claims for the civil magistrate (of whatever form of govern-
ment) the right and duty not only legally to protect, but also to sup-
1 On the subject of Toleration and Persecution, with special reference to England, the
reader may profitably consult a series of Tracts on Liberty of Conscience and Persecution,
161 4-1 661, edited by Edward B. Underbill for the Hansard Knollys Society, London, 1846;
W. E. H. Lecky, History of Rationalism in Europe (4th edition, London, 1870; New York
edition, 1875, in 2 vols.), ch. iv. ; Masson, Life of Milton, Vol. III. pp. 87 sqq., 383 sqq. ;
Stoughton, The Church of the Revolution (London, 1874), ch. iv. pp. 114 sqq.; and Mar-
shall's book quoted on p. 754.
2 The first dissenting voices came from Anabaptists and Socinians, and from Castellio,
who had nothing to gain and every thing to lose from the existing alliance of government
and religion.
§ 97. CBITICISM OF THE WESTMINSTER SYSTEM Oft DOCTRINE.
port the Christian Church, and to prohibit or punish heresy, idola^
try, and blasphemy.
The power to coerce and punish implies the principle of intol-
erance and the right of persecution in some form or other, though
this right may never be exercised. For just as far as a civil govern-
ment is identified with a particular Church, an offense against that
Church becomes an offense against the State, and subject to its pe-
nal code. All acts of uniformity in religion are necessarily exclusive,
and must prohibit the public manifestations of dissent, whatever may
be the private thoughts and sentiments, which no human government
can reach.
It is a fact, moreover, that the Westminster Assembly was called
for the purpose of legislating for the faith, government, and worship
of three kingdoms, and that by adopting the Solemn League and
Covenant it was pledged for the extirpation of popery and prelacy
and all heresy.1
The few Independents demanded a limited toleration, and were
backed by Cromwell and his army, which was full of Independents,
Baptists, Antinomians, Socinians, New Lights, Familists, Millenarians,
and other c proud, self -conceited, hot-headed sectaries' (as Baxter calls
them). All these sectaries, who sprung up during the great religious
excitement of the age, but mostly subsided soon afterwards, were of
course tolerationists in their own interest. But for this very reason the
prevailing sentiment in the Assembly was stoutly opposed to tolera-
tion, as the great Diana of the Independents and supposed mother
and nurse of all sorts of heresies and blasphemies threatening the
overthrow of religion and society.2 The Scottish delegation was a
1 And yet, in the face of this fact and the whole history of the seventeenth century, Dr. Heth-
erington (in his Introduction to Shaw's Exposition of the Confession of Faith, pp. xxviii.)
broadly denies any taint of intolerance in the Confession.
3 Thomas Edwards, a zealous Presbyterian minister at London, published in 1G45 a treatise
of 60 pages, dedicated to Parliament, under the title, Ocwgrama ; or, a Catalogue and Dis-
covery of many of the Errors, Heresies, Blasphemies, and Pernicious Practices of the Sectaries
of this Tine, in which he collects no less than one hundred and seventy-six miscellaneous
'errors, heresies, and blasphemies/ and enumerates sixteen heretical sects— namely : 1, Inde-
pendents; 2, Brownists; 3, Millenaries ; 4, Antinomians; tf, Anabaptists ; 6,Arminians; ^Lib-
ertines; 8, Familists; 9, Enthusiasts ; 10, Seekers; 11,Perfectists; 12, Socinians; 13,Arians;
1 4, Antitrinitarians ; 1 5, Antiscripturists ; 1 6, Skeptics. * The industrious writer,' says Neal,
'might have enlarged his catalogue with Papists, Prelatists, Deists, Banters, Behemenists, etc.,
etc., or, if he had pleased, a less number might have served his turn, for very few of these
798 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
unit on the subject, and Baillie wrote a Dissuasive from the Errors of
the Time (1645) against toleration, and attacked it in \i\&Letters.1 In-
numerable pamphlets were published on both sides. The advocates ot
toleration were defeated, and could only exact from the Assembly the
important declaration that God alone is Lord of the conscience.
And yet, if we judge the Westminster standards from the stand
point of the seventeenth century, and compare them with similar doc-
uments, they must be pronounced moderate.
1. They go no further on the subject of intolerance than the Belgic
Confession,2 the Gallican Confession,3 the English Articles,4 and the
Irish Articles.5 They teach less than is implied in the Anglican doc-
trine of the royal supremacy, which^ puts the religion of a whole na-
tion in the hands of the temporal sovereign, and which was employed
for the severest measures against all dissenters, Roman Catholic and
Protestant.
2. The Presbyterians, during the fifteen years of their domination,6
used their power very moderately, with the exception of a wholesale
ejectment of a large number of prelatists from office (allowing them,
however, one fifth of their income). This was a folly and a crime
(viewed from our standpoint), but not nearly as cruel as the hanging
and burning, the imprisonment, torture, and mutilation so freely exer-
cised against themselves and other non-conformists before 164:0 and
after 1661. During the disgraceful period of the Restoration, which
they unwisely brought about without exacting any pledges from the
faithless Stuart, they suffered for their loyalty to the Westminster
sectaries were collected into societies ; but his business was to blacken the adversaries of
Presbyterian uniformity, that the Parliament might crush them by sanguinary methods.*
See an account of this book in Neai, Part III. ch. vii. (Vol. II. p. 37), and Masson, Vol. III.
pp. 143 sqq.
1 Innes (Law of Creeds, pp. 243 and 244) says : ' Toleration was long unknown in the law,
as in the history, of Scotland. The intense sentiment of national unity was strongly against
it. The nation was one, and the Church became one. The Church claimed to be the Church
of Christ in the realm, exclusively and of divine right. . . . The Scottish commissioners went
to the Westminster Assembly to work out the " covenanted uniformity in religion," and the
new doctrine of the " toleration of sects" which met them there they most earnestly resisted.'
2 Art. 36. See Vol. III. p. 432.
8 Art. 39. See Vol. III. p. 372.
4 Art. 37. See Vol. III. p. 512.
4 No. 70. See Vol. III. p. 540.
6 We exempt the five years of Cromwell's Protectorate (1653-1658), during which th«
(independents were in the ascendency.
§ 97. CRITICISM OF THE WESTMINSTER SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE. 799
standards as much hardship and displayed as much heroism, both in
England and Scotland, as any Church or sect in Christendom ever did.1
3. The Confession expresses for the first time among the confessions
of faith, whether consistently or not, the true principle of religious
liberty, which was made the basis of the Act of Toleration, in the
noble sentiment of Oh. XX. 2 : * God alone is Lord of the conscience
(James iv. 12 ; Eom. xiv. 4), and hath left it free from the doctrines
and commandments of men, which are in any thing contrary to his
Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship (Acts iv. 19 ; v. 29 ;
1 Cor. vii. 23 ; Matt, xxiii. 8-10 ; xxv. 9 ; 2 Cor. 1, 24). So that to
believe such doctrines or to obey such commandments out of con-
science is to betray true liberty of conscience ; and the requiring of
an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy
liberty of conscience, and reason also' (Isa. viii. 20; Acts xvii. 11).
4. The objectionable clauses in the Confession and Larger Cate-
chism have been mildly interpreted and so modified by the Pres-
byterian Churches in Europe as to disclaim persecuting sentiments.2
1 A recent able writer, who has no sympathy whatever with the faith of Presbyterians,
thus describes their persecutions under the Stuarts : ' In Scotland, during almost the whole
period that the Stuarts were on the throne of England, a persecution rivaling in atrocity al-
most any on record was directed by the English government, at the instigation of the Scotch
bishops, and with the approbation of the English Church, against all who repudiated episco-
pacy. If a conventicle was held in a house, the preacher was liable to be put to death. If it
was held in the open air, both minister and people incurred the same fate. The Presbyte-
rians were hunted like criminals over the mountains ; their ears were torn from the roots ;
they were branded with hot irons ; their fingers were wrenched asunder by the thumbkins ;
the bones of their legs were shattered in the boots ; women were scourged publicly through
the streets ; multitudes were transported to the Barbadoes ; an infuriated soldiery was let
loose upon them, and encouraged to exercise all their ingenuity in torturing them.' (Lecky,
L c. Vol. II. p. 48, Amer. ed.)
9 The Established Church of Scotland, the Original Secession Church, the English Pres-
byterian Church, and the Irish Presbyterian Church adhere to the 'whole doctrine* of the
Westminster Confession, with a slight qualification of Ch. XXXI. 2. The Reformed Pres-
byterian Church does the same, but declares in its Testimony that it is * not pledged to defend
every sentiment or expression,' and asserts that 'to employ civil coercion of any kind for the
purpose of inducing men to renounce an erroneous creed, or to espouse and profess a sound
Scriptural one, is incompatible with the nature of true religion, and must ever prove ineffect-
ual in practice.' The United Presbyterian Church introduces into its Formula of subscription
this clause : * It being understood that you are not required to approve of any thing in these
documents which teaches, or is supposed to teach, compulsory or persecuting and intoler-
ant principles in religion.' The Free Church of Scotland meets the difficulty by a question-
able exegesis, declaring (in an ' Act anent Questions and Formula, ' June 1 , 1 846) : * The General
Assembly, in passing this Act, think it right to declare that, while the Church firmly main-
Tains the same Scriptural principles as to the duties of nations and their rulers in reference
g06 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
The Presbyterian Churches in the United States have taken the more
frank and effective course of an entire reconstruction of those chap-
ters, so as to make them expressly teach the principle of religious free-
dom, and claim no favor from the civil magistrate but that protection
which it owes to the lives, liberties, and constitutional rights of all
its citizens.1
GENERAL REMARKS ON THE PROGRESS OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
The question in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was about
toleration and persecution. But religious freedom requires much more,
and is now regarded as one of the fundamental and most precious
rights of men, which must be sacredly protected in its public exer-
cise by the civil government, within the limits of order, peace, and
public morals. This liberty is the final result and gain of ages of
intolerance and persecution.
The history of religious persecution is the darkest chapter in Church
history — we may call it the devil's chapter — and the darkest part in
it is the persecution of Christians by Christians. It is, however,
relieved by the counter-manifestation of the heroic virtues of Chris-
tian martyrdom and the slow but steady progress of liberty through
streams of martyr blood.
All Christian Churches, except a few denominations of recent date
which never had a chance, have more or less persecuted when in
power, and must plead guilty. The difference is only one of degree.
The Episcopalians were less intolerant than the Roman Catholics, the
Presbyterians less intolerant than the Episcopalians, the Independ-
ents less intolerant (in theory) than the Presbyterians. But they
were all intolerant. Even the Independents of Old England, with
the great Cromwell and the great Milton as their leaders, excluded
Eomanists, Prelatists (i. e., Episcopalians), and Unitarians from their
programme of toleration,2 and, strange to say, when in power in
to true religion and the Church of Christ, for which she has hitherto contended, she disclaims
intolerant or persecuting principles, and does not regard her Confession of Faith, or any por-
tion thereof, when fairly interpreted, as favoring intolerance or persecution, or consider that
her office-bearers, by subscribing it, profess any principles inconsistent with liberty of con-
science and the right of private judgment.' See Innes, The Law of Creeds, pp. 453, 461, 463.
1 See next section.
' Milton, the independent of Independents and the boldest as well as most eloquent cham*
§ 07. CRITICISM OF THE WESTMINSTER SYSTEM OJF DOCTRINE. 801
New England, they expelled Baptists and hanged Quakers on the vir-
gin soil of Massachusetts before and after the Westminster Assem-
bly. On the other hand, however, there is not a Christian Church
or sect that has not complained of intolerance and injustice under
persecution, and that has not furnished some bold advocates of tol-
eration and freedom, from Tertullian and Lactantius down to Roger
Williams and William Penn. This is the redeeming feature in this
fearful picture, and must not be overlooked in making up a just esti-
mate.
It is therefore the greatest possible injustice to charge the perse-
cutions to Christianity, which breathes the very opposite spirit of for-
bearance, forgiveness, love, and liberality ; which teaches us to suffer
wrong rather than to inflict wrong; and which, by restoring the di-
vine image in man, and lifting him up to the sphere of spiritual free-
dom, is really the pure source of all that is truly valuable in our
modern ideas of civil and religious liberty. Whatever may be said
of the severity of the Mosaic legislation, which assumes the union of
the civil and ecclesiastical power, Christ and the Apostles, both by
precept and example, strictly prohibit the use of carnal means for the
promotion of the kingdom of heaven, which is spiritual in its origin,
character, and aim. The reminiscence of this spirit lingered in the
Church through the darkest ages in the maxim EccUsia non sitit
sanguinem.
It is also wrong to derive intolerance from the strength and in-
tensity of religious conviction — although this undoubtedly may come
in as an additional stimulus — and to trace toleration to skepticism and
unbelief.1 For who had stronger convictions than St. Paul? His
Jewish conviction or phari&aieal fanaticism made him a bitter perse-
cutor, but his Christian conviction inspired his seraphic description
of love (1 Cor. xiii.) and strengthened him for martyrdom. On the
other hand, the Deist philosopher, Hobbes, by giving the civil power
an absolute right to determine the religion of a nation, taught the
pion of civil and religious liberty in the seventeenth century, was unwilling to tolerate Ro-
manists, because he regarded them as idolaters and as enemies of freedom. See his Areopa-
ffitica, of which Leeky (Vol. II. p. 80) says that it is as glorious a monument of the genius
of Milton as his Paradise Lost, and that it 'probably represents the very highest point that
English eloquence has attained.'
1 This is the theory of Lecky.
802 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
extreme doctrine of persecution ; and the reign of terror in France
proves that infidelity may be as fanatical and intolerant as the strong-
est faith, and may instigate the most horrible of persecutions.
Intolerance is rooted in the selfishness and ambition of human nat-
ure and in the spirit of sectarian exclusiveness, which assumes that
we and the sect to which we belong have the monopoly of truth and
orthodoxy, and that all who dissent from us must be in error. Perse-
cution follows as a legitimate consequence of this selfishness and big-
otry wherever the intolerant party has the power to persecute.
The Roman Church, wherever she controls the civil government, can
not consistently tolerate, much less legally recognize, any form of wor-
ship besides her own, because she identifies herself with the infallible
Church of Christ, out of which there is no salvation, and regards all
who dissent from her as damnable schismatics and heretics.1 Prot-
estants, who began with the assertion of private judgment against the
authority of Rome, and complained bitterly of her persecuting spirit,
are inconsistent and more inexcusable if they refuse the same right
to others and persecute them for its exercise. For a long time, how-
ever, Protestantism clung to the traditional idea of uniformity in re-
ligion, and this was the source of untold suffering, especially in Eng-
land, until it became manifest beyond a doubt that doctrinal and
ceremonial uniformity was au impossibility in a nation of intelligent
freemen. The Toleration Act of May 24, 1689, for the relief of Dis-
senters, marks the transition. Since that time religious persecution
by the civil power has ceased in the Anglo-Saxon race, and the prin-
ciple of religious liberty has gradually become a settled conviction
of the most advanced sections of the Christian world.
For this change of public sentiment the chief merit is due to the
English Non-conformists, who in the school of persecution became
advocates of toleration, especially to the Baptists and Quakers, who
made religious liberty (within the limits of the golden rule) an arti-
cle of their creed, so that they could not consistently persecute even
1 The limited toleration in some Koman Catholic countries exists in spite of Romanism,
and the liberal opinions and Christian feelings of individual Catholics have no influence on
the system, which is the same as ever, as may be inferred from the papal Syllabus of 1864, and
from the recent papal protest against even the minimum of religious toleration in Spain (1 876).
In Protestant countries the Roman Church claims as much liberty as she can get, and advocates
toleration in her own interest, but would deny it to others as soon as she attained to power.
§ 97. CRITICISM OF THE WESTMINSTER SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE. 803
if they should ever have a chance to do so.1 It was next promoted
by the eloquent advocacy of toleration in the writings of Chilling-
worth,2 Jeremy Taylor,3 and other Anglican divines of the latitudina-
rian school ; further, by the mingling of creeds and sects in the same
country where persecution failed of its aim ; and, lastly, by the skepti-
cal philosophy and the religious indifferentism of the eighteenth cen-
tury, which, however, has repeatedly shown itself most intolerant of
all forms of positive belief, and can therefore be no more trusted than
the bigotry of superstition. Keligious freedom is best guaranteed by
an enlightened Christian civilization, a liberal culture, a large-hearted
Christian charity, a comprehensive view of truth, a free social inter-
course of various denominations, and a wise separation of civil and
ecclesiastical government.
During the last stages of the age of persecution Providence began
to prepare in the colonies of North America the widest field and the
proper social basis for the full exercise of religious liberty and equal-
ity by bringing together under one government the persecuted of all
1 See the * Fourteenth Proposition ' of Barclay, adopted by the Quakers : * Since God hath
assumed to himself the power and dominion of the conscience, who alone can rightly instruct
and govern it, therefore it is not lawful tor any whatsoever, by virtue of any authority or
principality they bear in the government of this world, to force the consciences of others ; and
therefore all killing, banishing, fining, imprisoning, and other such things, which men are
afflicted with, for the alone exercise of their conscience, or difference in worship or opinion,
proceedeth from the spirit of Cain, the murderer, and is contrary to the truth ; provided al-
ways that no man, under the pretense of conscience, prejudice his neighbor in his life or
estate, or do any thing destructive to, or inconsistent with, human society; in which case the
law is for the transgressor, and justice to be administered upon all, without respect of per-
sons/ This was published in 1675. Bossuet, therefore, was imperfectly informed when at
the close of the seventeenth century (1C88) ho mentioned the Anabaptists and Socinians
as the only Christians who did not admit the power of the civil sword * dans les matures de
la religion et de la conscience* (Hist. des Variations, LIV. x. 56).
9 The Religion of Protestants a Safe Way to Salvation, 1637 (or 1638; dedicated in a most
humble preface to King Charles I. ; 8d ed. 1664 ; 10th ed. 1742; reprinted in the first two
vols. of the Oxford ed. of Chillingworth's Works, 1838, in 3 vols.)- This book is a vindication
of Protestantism and of the author's return to it, and proclaims that the Bible, the whole
Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants, and that no Church of one de-
nomination is infallible. At Chillingworth's burial, in Jan., 1644, Dr. Cheyneli, who had
shown him great kindness during his sickness, flung this book into the grave, with the words,
4 Get thee gone, them cursed book; go rot with thy author.' Chillingworth, however, had no
idea of civil liberty, and wrote as an extreme royalist on the Unlawfulness of Resisting the
Lawful Prince, although most Impious, Tyrannical, and Idolatrous,
8 Liberty of Prophesying, written in exile (1647), and unfortunately retracted in part, after
the Keatoration by the author himself, who declared it to have been a ruse de guerre. Coleridge
regards this weakness as almost the only stain on Taylor's character.
804: THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
nations and sects, so that the enjoyment of the liberty of each de-
pends upon and is guaranteed by the recognition and protection of the
liberty of all the rest.
§ 98. THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS IN AMERICA.
"With the Puritan emigration from England and the Presbyterian
emigration from Scotland and the North of Ireland, the Westminster
standards were planted on the virgin soil of America long before
the Declaration of Independence. The most popular is the Shorter
Catechism, which has undergone no change except a very slight one
among the Cumberland Presbyterians.1
THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES OF NEW ENGLAND.
The Confession of Faith was first adopted 'for substance of doc-
trine,' but without the principles of Presbyterian discipline, by the
Congregational Synod of Cambridge, in the Colony of Massachusetts,
A.D. 1648, one year after its issue in England ; then, in the Savoy
recension, by the Synod of Boston, Mass., May 12, 1680 ; and again, in
the same form, by the Congregational churches of Connecticut at a
Synod of Saybrook, Sept. 9, 1708.
The Smaller Catechism was formerly used as a school-book in New
England, but has been thrust into the background by the modern prej-
udice against catechisms and by a flood of more entertaining but less
solid Sunday-school literature.
TH-E PRESBYTERIAN CHURCHES.
The various Presbyterian bodies of English and Scotch descent
used at first all the Westminster standards without alteration. The
Presbytery of Philadelphia, the oldest in America, was organized in
1706, the Synod of Philadelphia in 1717, and the Synod of New York
in 1743. The Synod of Philadelphia, Sept. 19, 1729, adopted the
Confession with a liberal construction, in these words :
'Although the Synod do not claim or pretend to any authority of imposing our faith upon
other men's consciences, but do profess our just dissatisfaction with and abhorrence of such
impositions, and do utterly disclaim all legislative power and authority in the Church, being
willing to receive one another as Christ has received us to the glory of God, and admit to
1 See next section.
§ 98. THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS IN AMEHICA. 805
fellowship in sacred ordinances all such as we have grounds to believe Christ will at last
admit to the kingdom of heaven : yet we are undoubtedly obliged to take care that the faith
once delivered to the saints be kept pure and uncorrupt among us, and so handed down to
our posterity.
4 And [wej do therefore agree that all the ministers of this Synod, or that shall hereafter
be admitted to this Synod, shall declare their agreement in and approbation of the Confession
of Faith, with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster,
as being, in all the essential and necessary articles, good forms of sound words and systems of
Christian doctrine, and do also adopt the said Confession and Catechisms as the confession
of our faith.
* And we do also agree that all the Presbyteries within our bounds shall always take care
not to admit any candidate of the ministry into the exercise of the sacred function but what
declares his agreement in opinion with all the essential and necessary articles of said Con-
fession, either by subscribing the said Confession of Faith and Catechisms, or by a verbal
declaration of his assent thereto, as such minister or candidate shall think best. And in
case any minister of this Synod, or any candidate for the ministry, shall have any scruple
with respect to any article or articles of said Confession or Catechisms, he shall, at the time
of his making said declaration, declare his sentiments to the Presbytery or Synod, who shall,
notwithstanding, admit him to the exercise of the ministry within our bounds, and to minis-
terial communion, if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge his scruple or mistake to be only
about articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship, or government. But if the
Synod or Presbytery shall judge such ministers or candidates erroneous in essential and nec-
essary articles of faith, the Synod or Presbytery shall declare them incapable of communion
with them. And the Synod do solemnly agree that none of us will traduce or use any op-
probrious terms of those that differ from us in these extra-essential and not-necessary points
of doctrine, but treat them with the same friendship, kindness, and brotherly love as if they
had not differed from us in such sentiments.'1
In the afternoon session the scruples about adopting these standards
were solved, and the Synod unanimously declared that they do not re-
ceive 'some clauses in the twentieth and twenty-third chapters in any
such sense as to suppose the civil magistrate hath a controlling power
over Sytiods with respect to the exercise of their ministerial authority,
or power to persecute any for their religion, or in any sense contrary
to the Protestant succession to the throne of Great Britain.'
This supplementary action foreshadows the changes which were
afterwards made.
When the Synods of Philadelphia and New York united in one
body at Philadelphia, May 29, 1758, they adopted, as the first article
of the plan of union, the following:
' Both Synods having always approved and received the Westminster Confession of Faith
1 Minutes of the Synod of Philadelphia, as published in the Records of tht Presbyterian
Churrh in the United States of Awerira (embracing the Minutes of the Presbytery of Phila-
delphia, and of the Synods of New York and Philadelphia, from 1 706 to 1 788). Philad.
Prenbyt. Board of Public. 1841, p, 02. See also W. K. MOOKK'S Presbyterian Z>io-f.*t: a
Compvnd of //?« Arts and De/hwranres of 1lic Gmernl Aswmbly of the Presbyterian Church
in the TJnited States of America (Philad. Presbyt. Board), second ed. 1873, pp.45 sq. \
306 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
and Larger and Shorter Catechisms, as an orthodox and excellent system of Christian doc-
trine, founded on the Word of God, we do still receive the same as the confession of our
faith ; and also adhere to the plan of worship, government, and discipline contained in the
Westminster Directory, strictly enjoining it on all our members and probationers for the
ministry, that they preach and teach according to the form of sound words in said Confes-
sion and Catechisms, and avoid and oppose all errors contrary thereto.'1
THE AMERICAN REVISION.
After the Bevolutionary War the united Synod of Philadelphia and
New York, which met at Philadelphia, May 28, 1787, appointed a
committee to prepare an alteration in the Confession of Faith, Oh,
XX. (closing paragraph), Oh. XXIII., 3, and Oh. XXXI., 1, 2, in con-
sequence of the new relation of Church and State.2
The changes proposed were adopted by the joint Synod at a subse-
quent meeting in Philadelphia, May 28, 1788, in the following action :
' The Synod having fully considered the draught of the form of government and discipline,
did, on a review of the whole, and hereby do ratify and adopt the same, as now altered and
amended, as the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America, and order the same to
be considered and strictly observed as the rule of their proceedings by all the inferior judica-
tories belonging to the body. And they order that a correct copy be printed, and that the
Westminster Confession of Faith , as now altered, be printed in full along with it, as making
£ part of the Constitution.
* Resolved, That the true intent and meaning of the above ratification by the Synod is,
that the Form of Government and Discipline, and the Confession of Faith, as now ratified, is
to continue to be our constitution and the confession of our faith and practice unalterable,
unless two thirds of the Presbyteries under the care of the General Assembly shall propose
alterations or amendments, and such alterations or amendments shall be agreed to and
enacted by the General Assembly.'3
On the day following (May 29) the Synod ' took into consideration
the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and having made a
1 See Minutes of the Synod of 1758 as published in the Records of the Presbyterian Church,
p. 286. Also Moore's Digest, p. 48 ; and Gillett, Hist, of the Presbyt. Ch. in the U. S. of
America, Vol. I. p. 188.
2 See Records of the Presbyterian Church, p. 539, where we find the following minute,
dated May 28, 1787 : * The Synod took into consideration the last paragraph of the twenti-
eth chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the third paragraph of the twenty-third
chapter, and the first paragraph of the thirty-first chapter ; and having made some altera-
tions, agreed that the said paragraphs, as now altered, be printed for consideration, together
with the draught of a plan of government and discipline. The Synod also appointed the
above-named committee to revise the Westminster Directory for public worship, and to
have it, when thus revised, printed, together with the draught, for consideration. And the
Synod agreed that when the above proposed alterations in the Confession of Faith shall have
been finally determined on by the body, and the Directory shall have been revised as above
directed, and adopted by the Synod, the said Confession thus altered, and Directory thus re-
vised and adopted, shall be styled, "The Confession of Faith and Directory for Public Wor-
ship of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America."'
3 Records of the Presbyterian Church, p. 546 j Moore's Digest, p. 51.
§ 08. THK WESTMINSTER STANDARDS IN AMERICA.
807
small amendment of the Larger, did approve, and do hereby approve
and ratify the said Catechisms, as now agreed ou, as the Catechisms of
the Presbyterian Church in the said United States.' At the same time
it was ordered that all these standards, as altered and adapted to the
wants of the American churches, be printed and bound up in one
volume.1
The changes consist in the omission of those sentences which imply
the union of Church and State, or the principle of ecclesiastical estab-
lishments, making it the duty of the civil magistrate not only to pro-
tect, but also to support religion, and giving to the magistrate power to
call and ratify ecclesiastical synods and councils, and to punish heretics.
Instead of this, the American revision confines the duty of the civil
magistrate to the legal protection of religion in its public exercise,
without distinction of Christian creeds or organizations. It thus pro-
fesses the principle of religious liberty and equality of all denomina-
tions before the law. This principle has been faithfully and consist-
ently adhered to by the large body of the Presbyterian Church in
America, and has become the common law of the land. To facilitate
the comparison we present the respective sections in parallel columns :
ORIGINAL TEXT.
Oh. XXIII. 3.— Of the Civil Magistrate.
The civil magistrate may not assume to
himself the administration of the Word and
Sacraments, or the power of the keys of the
kingdom of heaven ; l yet he hath authority,
and it is his duty to take order, that unity and
peace be preserved in the Church, that the
truth of God he kept pure and entire, that all
blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all
corruptions and abuses in worship and dis-
cipline prevented or reformed; and all the
ordinances of God duly settled, administered,
1 2 Chron. xxvi. 18 ; Matt, xviii. 17; xvi.
19; 1 Cor. xii. 28, 20; Kph.iv. 7, 12; J Cor.
iv. 1,2; Bom. x. 15; Heb. v. 4.
AMERICAN TEXT.
Oh. XXIII. 3.— Of the Civil Magistrate.
Civil magistrates may not assume to them-
selves the administration of the Word and
Sncnimeiits; 1 or the power of the keys of the
kingdom of heaven ;* or, in the least, interfere
in mutters of faith. 3 Yet, as nursing fathers,
it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect
the Church of our common Lord, without
giving the preference to any denomination of
Christians above the rest, in such a manner
that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall
enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty
1 2 Chron. xxvi. 18.
8 Matt, xvi. 19 ; 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2.
3 John xviii. 30 ; Mai. ii. 7 ; Acts v. 29.
1 Records, p. 547 ; Moore's Digest, p. 52. The first edition of the new book appeared
1'hilad. 1789, under the title: * The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United
States of America, containing the Confession of Faith, the Catechisms, the Government and
Discipline, and the Directory of the Worship of God, ratified and adopted by the Synod of
New York and Philadelphia, May 28, 1788. The Assembly of 1 792 ordered a new edition
with the Scripture texts annexed, and appointed a committee for the purpose. This edition
was adopted by the Assembly in 1794 (Moore's Digest, p. 62).
VOL. I.— F F F
808
THE CfcKSKtoS OP CHRISTENDOM.
and observed. J For the better effecting where- '
of he hath power to call synods, to be present
at them, and to provide that whatsoever is
transacted in them be according to the mind
of God. a
Ch. XXXI. —Of Synods and Councils.
For the better government and farther edi-
fication of the Church, there ought to be such
assemblies as are commonly called synods or
councils.3
II. As magistrates may lawfully call a synod
of ministers and other fit persons to consult
and advise with about matters of religion :*
so, if magistrates be open enemies to the
Church, the ministers of Christ, of them-
selves, by virtue of their office ; or they, with
other fit persons, upon delegation from their
churches, may meet together in such assem-
blies.5
of discharging every part of their sacred func*
tions without violence or danger.1 And as
Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular govern-
ment and discipline in his Church, no law of
any commonwealth should interfere with, let,
or hinder the due exercise thereof among the
voluntary members of any denomination of
Christians, according to their own profession
and belief.8 It is the duty of civil magistrates
to protect the person and good name of all
their people, in such an effectual manner as
that no person be suffered, either upon pre-
tense of religion or infidelity, to offer any in-
dignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other
person whatsoever; and to take order that all
religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held
without molestation or disturbance.3
.Ch. XXXI.— Of Synods and Councils.
For the better government and further edi-
fication of the Church, there ought to be such
assemblies as are commonly called synods or
councils.* And it belongeth to the overseers
and other rulers of the particular churches, by
virtue of their office, and the power which Christ
hath given them for edification, and not for
destruction, to appoint such assemblies ; and
to convene together in them, as often as they
shall judge it expedient for the good of the
Church.5
1 Isa. xlix. 23.
8 Psa. cv. 15 ; Acts xviii. 14, 15, 16.
3 2 Sam. xxiii. 13; 1 Tim. ii. 1 ; Rom. xiii.
* Acts xv. 2, 4, 6.
6 Acts xv. 22, 23, 25.
4.
1 Isa. xlix. 23 ; Psa. cxxii. 9; Ezra vii. 23-
28; Lev. xxiv. 16; Deut. xiii. 5, 6, 12; 1
Kings xviii. 4 ; 1 Chron. xiii. 1-9 ; 2 Kings
xxiii. 1-26; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 33; xv. 12, 13.
* 2 Chron. xv. 8-17 ; xxix. 30 ; Matt. ii. 4,
5.
3 Acts xv. 2, 4, 6.
4 Isa. xlix. 23; I Tim. ii. 1, 2; 2 Chron.
xix. 8-12; xxix. and xxx. ; Matt. ii. 4, 5;
Prov. xi. 14.
* Acts xv. 2, 4,22, 23, 25.
In Ch. XX., § 4, the last sentence, c and by the power of the civil
magistrate/ was omitted, so as to read, ' they [the offenders] may law-
S 98. THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS IN AMERICA. 809
fully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of
the Church.'
The only change made in the Larger Catechism was the striking out
of the words < tolerating a false religion,' among the sins forbidden in
the Second Commandment (Quest. 109).
The example set by the Presbyterian Church in the United States
was afterwards (1801) followed by the Protestant Episcopal Church
in the revision of the political sections of the Thirty-nine Articles of
Religion.
PRESBYTERIAN REUNION.1
The division of the Presbyterian Church into Old School and New
" School, which took place at Philadelphia, June 8, 1837, arose chiefly
from contentions in consequence of the Plan of Union formed in 1801
between the General Assembly and the Congregational Association of
Connecticut, and involved two different constructions of the doctrinal
standards — the one more strict and conservative, the other more liberal
and progressive — but did not affect the organic law of the Church.2
The Old School, it is true, charged the New School with sixteen Pe-
lagian and Arminian errors, which had their origin in recent develop-
ments of New England theology; but the New School met the charge
with the * Auburn Declaration' (Aug. 1837), which denied those errors
and adopted sixteen 'true doctrines' in essential harmony with the
Calvinistic anthropology and soteriology. This Declaration must be
regarded as expressing the belief of the New-School body at that
time, whatever the views of individual members may have been.3
In the preparatory steps towards a reunion of these two bodies
1 For the documentary history of this remarkable movement, see the Minutes of the two
General Assemblies for 1867-69, and of the reunited Assembly from 1870 to 1872 ; also the
new edition of Moore's Presbyterian Digest (1873), pp. 57-10C ; and the Memorial Volume
on Presbyterian Reunion, New York, 1 870.
a For the documentary history of the separation of the Presbyterian Church and the ' Ex-
scinding Acts' of the Old-School Assembly, see Baird's Collection (0. S.), pp. 710 sqq., .and
the first edition of Moore's New Digest (N. S.), pp. 456 sqq. In the new edition of Moore's
Digest (1878), the chapter on the division is omitted, and the documents on the reunion
inserted instead,
3 The sixteen errors charged are found in Baivd's Collection, pp. 711 and 745 sqq., together
with the reply of the New School, which was afterwards, in Aug. of the same year, adopted
by a convention of 98 commissioned ministers and 58 laymen (besides 24 corresponding mem-
bers) at Auburn, N. Y., and is hence called the * Auburn Declaration.' The latter is also
embodied in the third volume of this work, p. 771. On its history, comp. Dr. Morris, in the
Amer. Presbyt. Review -, for January, 1876,
810 THE CREEDS OF CHBISTENDOM.
after a separation of thirty-two years, the question of the doctrinal
basis took a prominent part. It was proposed that ' in the United
Church the Westminster Confession of Faith shall be received and
adopted as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy
Scriptures.5 It is characteristic of the excellent temper and spirit of
concession which prevailed on both sides, that at the ' Presbyterian
National Union Convention,' held in November, 1867, at Philadel-
phia, Dr. Henry B. Smith, of the Union Theological Seminary, New
York, a prominent leader of the New School, proposed a defining
clause, to satisfy the demands of Old School orthodoxy ; ' while the
Eev. Dr. Gurley, pastor of an Old-School church in "Washington City,
proposed an additional clause to guarantee the New School liberty of
interpretation.2 The amendments were received unanimously, with
great joy and gratitude.
But after further consideration it was found best to drop both these
amendments, and when the reunion was consummated by the two
assemblies at Pittsburgh, Pa., Nov. 10, 1869, the following article was
unanimously adopted :
* Th« reunion shall be effected on the doctrinal and ecclesiastical basis of our common
Standards ; the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments shall be acknowledged to be the
inspired Word of God, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice ; the Confession of
Faith shall continue to be sincerely received and adopted, as containing the system of doc-
trine taught in the Holy Scriptures ; and the government and discipline of the Presbyterian
Church in the United States shall be approved as containing the principles and rules of our
polity.7
Thus the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America,
which had been unfortunately separated by a permissive decree of
God, was happily and, we trust, forever reunited by an efficient and
gracious decree of God.3
OTHER PRESBYTERIAN CHURCHES IN THE UNITED STATES.
In addition to this large Presbyterian Church, there are in the
1 The ' Smith amendment ' was in these words : * It being understood that this Confession
is received in its proper historical, that is, the Calvinistic or Reformed, sense.' This would
exclude, of course, Antinomianism and Fatalism on the one hand, and Arminiamsm and
Pelagianism on the other.
8 The * Gurley amendment ' was in these words : ' It is also understood that various meth-
ods of viewing, stating, explaining, and illustrating the doctrines of the Confession, which do
not impair the integrity of the Reformed or Calvinistic system, are to be freely allowed in
the United Church, as they have hitherto been allowed in the separate Churches.'
3 See the address of Dr. Musgrave at the meeting in Pittsburgh, Memorial Fo/wroe, p. 388.
§ 98. THE WEh>TMtNriTE& STANDARDS IN AMEEICA. 8U
United States a number of smaller ones having distinctively a Scot-
tish origin. Of these and of their relation to the Westminster stand-
ards the Rev. G. D. MATIJJBWS, of New York, from his own familiar
acquaintance with the Presbyterian Churches in Scotland and the
United States, kindly furnishes for this work the following account:
'Among the emigrants into this country in the last century were many who had been
connected with the Associate Church of Scotland. The fathers of that Church, the Er-
skines, objected not so much to the constitution of the Established Church as to its admin-
istration, especially in reference to patronage and to Church discipline. In 1753 the Ameiv
ican Associate Church was organized as a Presbytery subordinate to the Antiburgher Synod
of Scotland, equalling if not surpassing the mother Church in its rigid adherence to the
doctrinal system of the Westminster standards. Its zeal for these, indeed, served to deepen
its opposition to the Scottish Establishment as a Church that had become unfaithful to its
religious profession.
* In 1774 a Reformed Presbyterian Presbytery was constituted in America by followers
of Cargill, Cameron, and Renwick. These held that the Church of Scotland hud marred its
standing as a true Church of Christ by entering into union with an immoral government —
the government of Great Britain being of this character because not based on Scriptural
principles. Of this latter position the proof was alleged to lie in its disregard, as shown by
the national acceptance of Episcopacy at the Restoration in 16(50, and again at the Revolution
in 1C88, of that Solemn League and Covenant which had been sworn to in 1643, a Covenant
whose engagements were affirmed to be binding on the people of the British Empire until ful-
filled. An additional proof lay in the absence from its constitution of any acknowledgment
of God as the Author of its existence and the source of its authority, of Jesus Christ as its
Ruler, and of the Bible as the supreme law of its conduct.
1 Notwithstanding some actual differences, the force of circumstances brought these Churches
together, so that in 1782 they becume united under the name of the Associate Reformed
Church — minorities on both sides refusing to enter the union, and thus perpetuating their
respective Churches. In 1 790 the Associate Reformed Church issued an edition of the West-
minster Confession containing the following changes from the original documents :
CHAI>. XX, 4. — . . . faith, worship, conversation, (insert) or the order which Christ hath
established in his Church, they may be lawfully called to account, and proceeded against by the
censures of the Church ; and in proportion as their erroneous opinions or practices, either in
their own nature or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the exter-
nal peace, of the, Church and of civil society, tjley may also be proceeded against by the power of
the civil magistrate.
CHAP. XXII J. J{. — . . . the keys of the kingdom of heaven. (Add) Yet, as the gospel
revelation fays indispensable obligations upon all classes of people who are favored with it,
magistrates, as such, are bound to execute their respective offices in a subserviency thereto, ad-
ministering government on Christian principles, and ruling in the fear of God, according to the
directions of Ms Word; as those who shall give an account to the Lord Jesus, whom (jod hath
anointed to be the Judge of the world.
J fence magistrates, as such, in a Christian country are bound to promote the Christian religion,
xs the most' valuable interest of their subjects, by all such means as are not inconsistent with civil
rights, and do not imply an interference with the policy of the Church, which is the free and inde-
pendent kingdom of the Redwmer, nor an assumption of dominion over conscience.
C«AP. XXXI. 2.— (Substitute.) The ministers of Christ^ themselves, and by virtue of their
office; or they with other fit persons, upon delegation from their churches, have the exclusive right
to appoint, adjourn, or dissolve such synods or councils ; though in extraordinary cases it may be
proper for magistrates to desire the calling of a synod of ministers and other Jit persons, to con-
sult and advise with about matters of religion; and in such cases it is the duty of churches to
comply with their desire.
* In the Larger Catechism, under the things forbidden by the Second Commandment, the
word authorizing was substituted for "tolerating a false religion."
812 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
'In 1858 the Associate Church, which had by this time grown considerably, joined with
the Associate Reformed Church, when the name United Presbyterian Church was assumed
and the Westminster Confession again altered. The edition used by this Church differs from
the original in the following passages :
CHAP. XX. 4. — . , . hath established in the Church, they (add) ought to be called^ to
account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, if they belong to her communion,
and thus be amenable to her own spiritual authority. And as the civil magistrate is the minister
of God for good to the virtuous and a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth fli'iV, he is
therefore bound to suppress individuals and 'continuations, whatever may be their aeoioed objects,
whether political or religious, whose principles and practices, openly propagated and maintained,
are calculated to subvert the foundations of properly constituted society.
CHAP. XXIII. 3. — . . . kingdom of heaven, (add) or in the least interfere to regulate mafters
of faith and worship. As nursing fathers, magistrates are bound to administer their ffovernmtnt
according to the revealed principles of Christianity, and to improve the opportunities which their
high station and extensive influence afford in promo f ing the Christian religion as their own most
valuable interest and the good of the people demand, by all such means as do not imply any in-
fringement of the inherent rights of the Church, or any assumption of dominion over the consciences
of men. They ought not to punish any as heretics or schismatics. JVb authoritative judgment con-
cerning matters of religion is competent to them, as their authority extends only to the external
works or practices of their subjects as citizens, and not as Christians. It is their duty to protect
the Church in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons shall enjoy the free, full, and unques-
tioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions without violence or danger. They
should enact no law which would in any way interfere with or hinder the due exercise of govern-
ment and discipline established by Jesus Christ in his Church. It is their duty also to protect the
person, good name, estate, natural and civil rights of all their subjects in such a way that no per-
son be suffered, upon any pretense, to violate them; and to take order that all religions and eccle-
siastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance. God alone being Lord of the con-
science, the civil magistrate may not compel any under his civil authority to worship (Sod contrary
to the dictates of their own consciences ; yet it is competent in him to restrain such opinions and to
punish such practices as tend to subvert the foundations of civil society and violate the. common
rights of mm.
CHAP. XXXI. 2.— -(Substitute.) We declare that as the Church of Jesus Christ is a king-
dom distinct from and* independent of the state, haoing a government, laws, office-bearers, and all
spiritual power peculiar to herself for her own edification ; so it belongs exclusively to the minis-
ters of Christ, together with other Jit persons, upon delegation from their churches, by virtue f>f
their office and the intrinsic power committed unto them, to appoint their own assemblies, and 'to
convene together in them as often as they should judge it expedient for the good of the Church.
*In the question of the Larger Catechism, changed in 1790, the original word tolerating
was restored.
' At no period has the Associate Church, which still exists, altered the language of the
Confession. It has refrained from doing this, "judging it to be improper for one eccle-
siastical body to alter any deed of another, making it rather express their own views than
those of the body by whom it was originally framed, for hereby the sentiments of one body
may be unfairly palmed upon another." Any obscurity or error in the Confession should be
remedied by the emitting of a Testimony, in which there could be given a full and accurate
statement of the particular truth in question. In 1784-, therefore, the Associate Church issued
such a Testimony, in which (Articles 15-19), speaking of the civil magistrate, it affirmed that
the magistrate, as such, is no ruler in the Church ; that he should not grant any privileges to
those whom he judges professors of the true religion which may hurt others in their natural
rights ; that his whole duty, as a magistrate, respects men, not as Christians, but as members
of civil society ; that any de facto government governing orderly is that ordinance of God which
must be obeyed, and that with any such government Christians may lawfully co-operate.
' The Reformed Presbyterian Church has also retained the Westminster Confession unal-
tered. Adhering to its teaching on the Civil Magistrate, as this was received by the Church
of Scotland in the Adopting Act of 1647, it issued in 180G a Testimony, in which it declared
that civil government is a natural institution, hut that to be a lawful one, so that a Christian
man may take part in it, God must be acknowledged in its constitution as the fountain of all
§ 99. THE WESTM. STANDARDS IN THE CUMBERLAND PRESBYT. CH. 813
power and authority, and that Christian rulers, appointed to office according to a righteous
civil constitution, have authority from God to rule, in suhserviency to the kingdom of Christ.
The absence from the American national constitution of any such acknowledgment renders
that covenant unscriptnral and immoral, and so precludes Christian men from becoming
identified with its administration. Another reason for this political dissent is the doctrine
of the binding obligation of the Scottish Covenants.
' A difference of opinion that had gradually risen within this Church as to the extent of
this precluding led to the formation, in 1833, of the Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian
Church holding the extremest view of political dissent, and of the General Synod of the same
Church, permitting its members to exercise the political franchise.
4 As regards the doctrinal articles of the Confession, all these Churches are Calvino Cal-
viniores. '
§ 99, THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS IN THE CUMBERLAND PRESBY-
TERIAN CHURCH.
SOURCES.
I. On the part of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church :
The Confession of Faith of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Re-
vised and adopted bit the General Assembly, at Princeton, Ky., May, 1829. Nashville, Tennessee (Board
of Pnbl. of the C. P. <Jh.), 1ST5 (pp. 286). The same book contains also the Shorter Catechism, the
Form of Government and Discipline, the Directory of Worship, and Manual.
The history of the origin of the nchlBm is contained In the Circular Letter of the late Cumberland
Presbytery ; the Reply to a Paatond Letter of West Tennessee Presbytery.
II. On the part of the Preabyte^an Church •
SAMUEL BAIBD: Collection of the Acts, Deliverances, and Testimonies of the Presbyterian Church.
Philad. (Presbyt. Board), 1855; second ed. 1R59, pp. 040 sqq. Contains the official acts of the General
Assembly on the origin and disorders of the Cumberland Presbytery.
WM. E. MOORIC: A New DifleM of the Act* ami Deliverances of the General Assembly of the Presbijten'an
Church in the United Mates of America. Philadelphia, 1801, p. 05 (on the validity of the Cumberland
Presbyterian ordinances), and p. 448 (on terms of correspondence)).
ROBERT DAVIDHON: History of the Presbyterian Church in the #fate of Kentucky. New York, 1847
(cb. ix. pp. 2523 Bqq., 'The Cumberland Presbyterian Schism'}.
HISTORICAL AND DOCTRINAL.
JAMF.H SMITH: History of the Chrtotian Church, 'nidudiiiy a llitttory cf the Cwnberlaml l^wbytvi /an
Church. NtwUvillo, 1H35.
E. B. ORIHM AN : 0)"i<j'!ii <w<7 Doctrines of tlw CuiHberlavd l^rwbyterian Church. 1850, new ed. Nasbr
ville, Ton n. 1KTIS.
RICHARD HKAHI> (D.I), and Prof, of Synt. Thool. in Cumberland University, Lebanon, Tennessee):
Why am la Gwnlierlanfl Prwbitteriant Nashville, Tenn. 1872. By the same - Lectures on ityfitematie
Theology, 8 vols. Nashville (Board of Pnbl,). Comp. hifl Art. In Johnson's Universal Cyclop. 1876, Vol. L
F. R. UOBBIW : Life and Times of Rev. Finis Swing. Louisville, 18&B.
HISTORICAL.
The CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN ClIUROII IN THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, so called from its birth-place, the ' Cumberland Country ' in
Kentucky and Tennessee, took its rise in an extensive revival of re-
ligion which began in the southwestern part of Kentucky in 1797, and
reached its height in 1800 and 1801, among a population mostty of
Scotch-Irish descent Methodist ministers took part in it. This re-
vival called for a larger number of ministerial laborers than could
be supplied in the regular way by the few Presbyterian institutions
of learning then existing. Hence the Presbytery of Cumberland (£ at
514: THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
the recommendation of the Eev. Mr. Kiee, the oldest Presbyterian min*
ister then residing in Kentucky') licensed and ordained a number of
pious men without a liberal education, and allowed them, in sub-
scribing the Westminster Confession, to express their dissent from
what they called the doctrine of ' fatality,' i.e., the doctrine of abso-
lute decrees. The Synod of Kentucky demanded a re-examination of
these ministers and candidates; this being refused, it dissolved the
Cumberland Presbytery in 1806. The General Assembly confirmed
the action, but ultimately recognized the Cumberland Presbyterians
as an independent organization, and entered into terms of correspond-
ence with them as with other evangelical denominations.1
The dissenters organized an independent < Cumberland Presbytery,'
February 4, 1810, consisting of four regularly ordained ministers, six
licentiates, and seven candidates. The presbytery grew into the Cum-
berland Synod in 1813, and this adopted a Confession, Catechism, arid
Form of Church Government. The Confession was the work of a
committee of which the Eev. Finis Ewing was the leading spirit. The
Cumberland Synod was divided into three (1828), and a General As-
sembly was formed, which held its first session in May, 1829. This
body subjected the Confession of Faith to a final revision. 'In so
doing, the Synod and General Assembly only exercised an undeniable
right, allowed by the God of the Bible and secured by the civil consti-
tution ; and discharged what they conceived to be a duty to the Church
and the world. . . . Let the work be tried neither by tradition nor the
fathers, but by the holy Scriptures.'2
1 In 1825 the General Assembly declared that the ministrations of the Cumberland Pres-
byterians 'are to be viewed in the same light with those of other denominations' (Baird's
Collection, p. 646). In 1849 the General Assembly of the New School entered into cor-
respondence with them, and passed this resolution : ' The General Assembly of each Church
shall appoint and receive delegates from the General Assembly of the other Church, who
shall be possessed of all the powers and privileges of other members of such Assemblies, except
that of voting' (Minutes, p. 184; Moore, p. 448). The Rev. Dr. Alexander J. Baird appeared
as a delegate of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church before the United General Assembly in
Baltimore, 1873, and was cordially received (Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyt.
Church for 1873, p. 485). In the following year the General Assembly at St. Louis sent a
salutation to the Cumberland Presbyterian Assembly then in session at Springfield, Mo.,
with the words: 'Serving the same Lord, we are one in him. May he dwell in us.' To
this the Cumberland Assembly responded in the same fraternal spirit (Minutes for 3874, pp.
1 8 and 20). A committee of conference on union was also appointed, but was discharged
by the General Assembly of 1875 (Minutes, p. 480).
a Preface to the Confession.
§ 99. THE WESTM. STANDARDS IN THE CUMBERLAND PRESBYT. CH. 815
The Cumberland Church has since spread rapidly, and extends now
from Western Pennsylvania to Texas and California. It furnishes the
proof that people may be good Presbyterians without being Calvinists.
THE CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN CONFESSION.
The Cumberland Presbyterians differ from the regular Presbyteri-
ans in two points — the education for the ministry and the doctrine
of predestination. They adopt and use the Westminster Confession
in full, with the American amendments in Chs. XXIII. and XXXI.,
and slight verbal changes, but they depart from it in rejecting the un-
conditional election and reprobation as taught in Ch. III.1 They re-
tain, however, substantially Ch. XVII. on perseverance, although per-
severance presupposes unconditional election, and is inconsistent with
conditional election. The Cumberland Confession teaches on the one
hand conditional election and unlimited atonement, and on the other
the final perseverance of the saints. It is an eclectic compromise
between Calvinism and Arrninianism ; it is half Calvinistic and half
Arminian, and makes no attempt to harmonize these antagonistic
elements. ' Cumberland Presbyterians,5 says one of their writers, £ be-
lieve as firmly as Arminians do that salvation, in all cases, is con-
ditional. But they believe that every genuine saint will comply with
the conditions; and thus salvation becomes certain to saints. It is
uncertain to sinners because it is doubtful whether they will comply
with the conditions; but certain to saints because it is certain that
they will comply with the conditions — " My sheep hear mv voice, and
they follow me."'2 The same writer answers the usual objections to
the doctrine of perseverance (the fall of Adam and the angels, of Sol-
omon and Peter, the warnings and exhortations of Scripture, the al-
leged inconsistency of the doctrine with free agency and the duty of
watchfulness), and urges nine reasons against the Arminiau view of
falling from grace.3
Another departure connected with the former is the affirmation of
1 See the changes in Vol. III. p. 771.
3 Crisman, 1. c. p. 158. Comp, art. of Prof. R. Beard, 1. c. : 'Its theology is Calvinistic,
with the exception of the offensive doctrine of predestination so expressed as to seem to em-
body the old pagan dogma of necessity or fatality.1
* The difficulties of this great problem of predestination have been discussed more fully in
§ 97, pp. 791 sqq.
816 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
the salvation of all infants dying in infancy. The old Confession says.
Oh. X. 3: ' Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved
by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when and where and how
he pleasetli.' This seems naturally (though not necessarily) to imply
the existence of reprobate infants who are not saved. To avoid this
interpretation, the Cumberland Confession substitutes all for elect, and
thus positively teaches universal infant salvation. In this point it has
anticipated what seems now to be the general sentiment among Ameri-
can Presbyterians, who harmonize it with the Westminster Confession
either by interpreting that all infants dying in infancy are elect, or
that it confines itself to state as an article of faith what is clearly
warranted in Scripture, and leaves the rest to private opinion.
The Shorter Catechism of the Assembly has been changed by the
Cumberland Presbyterians in Question 7 as follows :
WESTMINSTER CATECHISM.
What are the decrees of God?
The decrees of God are his eternal purpose
according to the counsel of his will, whereby,
for his own glory, he hath foreordained what-
soever comes to pass.
CUMBERLAND CATECHISM.
What are the decrees of God ?
The decrees of God are his purpose accord-
ing to the counsel of his own will, whereby he
hath foreordained to bring to pass what shall
be for his own glory : sin not being for God's
glory, therefore he hath not decreed it.
In Question 20 the words ' God did provide salvation for all man-
kind' are substituted for ' God, having elected some to everlasting life,'
and the phraseology is otherwise changed. In Question 31, for the
phrase 'What is effectual calling?5 is substituted 'What is the work
of the Spirit?'
[NOTE. — In 1906, the Cumberland Presbyterian Church was "reunited" with tho Pres-
byterian Church, U. S. A., accepting the Westminster Confession as revised, 1902. A
dissenting element retained the old name and has perpetuated the organization with a
membership, 1929, of 64,081. At the time of the union, 1906, the Cumberland Church
reported 200,000 members in 114 presbyteries, — ED.]
§ 100. GENERAL SURVEY. 817
EIGHTH CHAPTER.
MODERN PROTESTANT CREEDS.
§ 100. GENERAL SURVEY.
With the Westminster standards the creed-making period of the
Reformed Churches was brought to a close. Calvinism found in them
its clearest and fullest exposition. The Helvetic Consensus Formula
(1675) was only a weak symbolical after-birth, called forth by the Sau-
mur controversies on the extent of divine election and the inspiration
of Hebrew vowel-points. The creative power of Lutheran symbolism
had exhausted itself much earlier in the Formula of Concord (1577),
and was followed by a period of scholastic analysis and demonstration
of the Lutheran system as embodied in its authoritative confessions.
The prevailing tendency in these Churches is to greater confessional
freedom and catholic expansion rather than sectarian contraction.
While the Roman Catholic Church in our age has narrowed its creed
by adding two new dogmas of wide range and import, and has doomed
to silence every dissent from the infallible decisions of the Vatican,
like a machine that is worked by a single motive force, and makes
resistance impossible, the Protestant Churches would simplify and
liberalize their elaborate standards of former days rather than increase
their bulk and tighten their authority. The spirit of the age refuses
to be bound by rigorous formulas, and demands greater latitude for
private opinion and theological science.
We might therefore close our history of creeds at this point. But
evangelical Protestantism extends far beyond the boundaries of Luther-
anism and Calvinism.
Since the middle of the seventeenth century there arose, mainly from
the fruitful soil of the Reformed Church in England, first amid much
persecution, then under the partial protection of the Toleration Act oi
1689, a number of distinct ecclesiastical organizations, which, while
holding fast to the articles of the oecumenical faith of orthodox Chris-
tendom, and the evangelical principles of the Protestant Reformation,
differ on minor points of doctrine, worship, and discipline. They have
passed through the bloody baptism of persecution as much as the old-
er Churches of the Reformation, and by their fruits they have fully
818
THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
earned a title to an honorable standing in the family of Christian
Churches.
The most important among these modern denominations are the
CONGREGATIONALISTS, BAPTISTS, and QuAKEKS, who rose in the seven-
teenth century, and the METHODISTS and MORAVIANS, who date from
the middle of the eighteenth century. They originated in England,
with the exception of the Moravians (who are of Bohemian and Ger-
man descent), and found from the start a fruitful and congenial soil
in the American colonies, which offered an hospitable asylum to all
who suffered from religious persecution. The Congregationalists had
established flourishing colonies in Massachusetts and Connecticut be-
fore they were even tolerated in the mother country. Koger Williams,
the patriarch of the American Baptists, though of English birth and
training, made Ehode Island his permanent home. The fathers and
founders of the Society of Friends — Fox and Penn ; of Methodism —
Wesley and Whitefield ; of the Moravian Church — Zinzendorf , Span-
genberg, Nitschmann — visited America repeatedly, and with such
success that they gave to their denominations an Anglo-American
stamp. Two of these denominations, the Methodists and Baptists,
have in the United States during the nineteenth century numeric-
ally far outgrown the older Protestant Churches, and are full of
aggressive zeal and energy, both at home and in distant missionary
fields.1
On the Continent of Europe these Anglo-American denominations
till quite recently were little known, and were even persecuted as in-
truders and unchurchly sects. National State Churches will allow the
1 The following comparative table of ministers and churches in 1776 and 1876 gives at least
an approximate idea of the growth of churches in the United States during its first centennial :
STATISTICS OF 1776 (OB 1780-90).
STATISTICS OF 1876.
DENOMINATIONS.
Ministers.
Churches.
DENOMINATIONS.
Ministers.
OhurciH'H. j
Baptists
722
575
150
(No bishop.)
400
25
24
$»
40
12
26(?)
872
700
200
500
60
"8(F)
419
100
60
62(?)
Baptists
13,779
3,333
3,216
(Glbishops.)
2,662
20,453
75
4,744
546
644
5,141
(56 bishops.)
22,^4
3,501)
4,000
885
4,623
40,000
75
5,077
506
1,353
5,046
Congregationalists
Congregationalists
[Episcopalians* «
[Episcopalians.
[Friends (Quakers)
Friends (Quakers)
Lutherans (1786)
Lutherans
Methodists
Methodists
Moravians.
Presbyterians (1788)
Presbyterians
Reformed, Dutch
Reformed, Butch
Reformed, German
Roman Catholics
Roman Catholics
§ 100. GENERAL SUBVEY. 819
widest latitude of theological speculation within the limits of outward
conformity rather than grant freedom of public worship to dissenting
organizations, however orthodox.1
The nineteenth century has given birth in England to the IRVING-
ITES and DAKBYITES, and in America to the CUMBERLAND PRESBYTE-
RIANS, REFORMED EPISCOPALIANS, and other organizations, which more
or less depart from the older Protestant confessions, but adhere to the
supernatural revelation in the Bible and the fundamental articles of
general orthodoxy.2
The creeds of these modern Protestant denominations (if we except
the Savoy Declaration of 1658 and the Baptist Confession of 1688,
which contain the body of the Westminster Confession) are thin,
meagre, and indefinite as compared with the older confessions,
which grew out of the profound theological controversies of the six-
teenth century. They contain much less theology; they confine them-
selves to a popular statement of the chief articles of faith for practical
use, and leave a large margin for the exercise of private judgment.
In this respect they mark a return to the brevity and simplicity of the
primitive baptismal creeds and rules of faith. The authority of creeds,
moreover, is lowered, and the absolute supremacy and sufficiency of the
Scriptures is emphasized.
In the present age there is, especially in America, a growing tendency
towards a liberal recognition and a closer approach of the various
evangelical denominations in the form of a free union and co-opera-
tion in the common work of the Master, without interfering with the
inner organization and peculiar mission of each. This union tendency
manifests itself from different starting-points and in different direc-
1 Under the disparaging name of sects the Methodists and Baptists, and other denomina-
tions figure usually in German works on Symbolics that recognize only three Churches or
Confessions — the Catholic (Greek and Roman), the Lutheran, and the Reformed (Galvinistic).
The late Professor Marheineke, one of the chief writers on Symbolics, after explaining to his
catechumens of Trinity Parish, in Berlin, that there are three Churches in Christendom,
asked a pupil, 4To what Church do you belong?' and received the answer, 'To Trinity
Church.' The science of Symbolics, or Comparative Theology, has thus far been almost ex-
clusively cultivated in Germany, but should be reconstructed on a much more liberal scale in
England and America, where all denominations meet in daily intercourse and on terms of
equal rights.
3 Some of these have already been considered, the Cumberland Presbyterians in connection
with the Westminster Confession, the Reformed Episcopalians in connection with the history
of the Thirty-nine Articles.
820 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
tious, now in the form of voluntary associations (such as Bible and
Tract Societies, Young Men's Christian Associations, the Evangelical
Alliance, the German Church Diet), now in the form of ecclesiastical
confederations (Pan- Anglican Council, Presbyterian Alliance, Anglo-
Greek Committees, the Bonn Conferences), now in the form of organic
union (the evangelical Union of Lutherans and Reformed Churches in
Prussia and other German States, Presbyterian Reunion of Old and
New School). The same tendency calls forth efforts, feeble as yet, to
formulate the essential consensus of the creeds of congenial sections of
Christendom. The old motto, in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas,
in omnibus caritas^is struggling to become a practical reality; the age
of separation and division is passing away, and the age of the reunion
of divided Christendom is beginning to dawn, and to gather the corps
of Christ's army, so long engaged in internal war, against the common
foe Antichrist.
§ 101. THE CONGKREGATIONALISTS.
LITERATURE.
I. ENGLISH CONGREGATIONALISM.
See the sources of the Westminster Assembly, and the historical works of Neal, Stoughton, and
others mentioned in §§ 92, 93, and 94.
JOHN ROBINSON (Pastor of the Pilgrim Fathers in Leyden, d. 1625) : Works, with Memoir by Robert
Ashton. London, 1851, 3 vols.
The Grand Debate concerning Presbytery and Episcopacy in the Westminster Assembly (Lend. 1662).
The works of Drs. GOODWIN, OWEN, HOWE, and other patriarchs of Independency.
BENJAMIN BUOOK : The Lives of the Puritatut front, Queen Elizabeth to 1G02. London, 1818, 3 vols.
BENJAMIN HANKURY: Historical Memorials relating to the Independents or CongreyathmciliHt*, from,
their Rise to the Restoration of the Monarchy, A.D. 1C60. London (Congreg. Union of England and
Wales), 1839-1844, 3 vols.
Jos. FLKTOUJCII: History of Independency in England since the Reformation. London, 1847-1849, 4 vols,
GKOR<JE PUNCH A RX> (of Boston) : History of Congregationalism from about A.I}. 250 to the. I>n>.seut Time.
2d ed. rewritten and enlarged, New York and Boston (Hard & Houghton), 1866-81, 6 vols. (The first
two vols. are irrelevant.)
JOHN W ALDINGTON : Congregational History, 1200-1567. London, 1869-78, 4 vols. Second volume from
1567 to 1700, Lond. 1874. (See a searching and damaging review of this work by Dr. Dexter in the " Oon-
greg. Quarterly" for July, 1874, Vol. XVI. pp. 420 sqq.)
HERBERT 8. SKXATB : A History of the Free Churches of England from 1683 to 1851. London, 1867 ; 2d ed,
1869.
II. AMERICAN CONGREGATIONALISM.
(1) Sources.
The works of JOHN ROBINSON, above quoted, especially his Justification of Separation from the
Church of England, (1610, printed in 1639).
JOHN COTTON (of Boston, England, and then of Boston, Mass.) : The Way of the Churches of Christ in
New England. Or the Way of Churches Walking in Brotherly Equality or Co-ordination, without Subjection
of one Church to another. Measured oy the Golden Heed of the Sanctuary. London, 1045. By the same :
The Way of Congregational Churches cleared (against Baillie and Rutherford). London, 1648.
THOMAS HOOKER (of Hartford, Conn.) : ^4 Survey of the Summe of Church Diw'pline. London, 1648.
Bobinson, Cotton, and Hooker are the connecting links between English In dependency nml Ameri-
can Congregationalism. Their rare pamphlets (wretchedly printed, like most works during the period
of the civil wars, from want of good type and paper) are mostly found in the Congregational Library at
Boston, and ought to be republished in collected form.
§ 101. THE COKGREGATIONA LISTS. 821
ALEXANDKR YOUNG: Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers of the Colony of Plt.moiitli.frow 1602 to 1628.
Boston, 184=1.
ALEXANDER YOUNG : Chronicles of the First Planters of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay. From 1C23 to
1036. Boston, 1840.
GBORUH B. CUJHKVKK: The Journal of the Pilgrims at Plymouth, in New England, in 1620; reprinted
from the original volume, with illustrations. New York, 1848.
NATIIANAEL MORTON (Secretary to the Court for the Jurisdiction of New Plymouth): flew England's
Memorial. Boston, 1855 (6th ed. Gougreg. Board of Publication). Reprints of Memorial of 1669,
Bradford's History of Plymouth Colony, etc.
(2) Histories.
BENJAMIN TBUMBULL, D.D. : A Complete History of Connecticut, Civil and Ecclesiastical, from the Emi-
gration of its First Planters, from England, in the year icao, to the year 1764. New Haven, 1818, 2 vols
LEONARD BACON : Thirteen Historical Discourse*, on the Completion of Two Hundred. Years from the
Beginning of the First Church in New UawH. New Haven, 1889.
JOBKVII B. FICLT: The Ecclesiastical History of Xeio England; comprising not onlij Religious, "but also
Moral and other Relation «. Boston, Mass. (Congregational Library Association), 1S55-1862, 2 vols.
JOSKPJU S. C i. ABIC: A Historical Sketch of the Congregational Churches in Massachusetts from 1620 to
1858. Boston, 1858.
Memorial of tlie Semi-Centennial Celebration of the Founding of the Theological Seminary at Andover.
An clover, Mass. 1859.
Contributions to the J Ecclesiastical History of Connecticut; prtpared under the Direction of the General
Association to Commemorate the Completion of One Hundred and Fifty Years since its First Annual
Assembly. New Haven (publ. by WM. L. KXNOSLKY), 1861.
DANIEL AFPLXTON WIUTJB: New England Conyrefiationaliwn in its Origin and Purity; Illustrated D?/
th& Foundation and Marty Records of the First Church in tialem pAuss.]. ISaleiu, 1801. Comp. Reply to
the above, by JOBKPH B. FJBLT. Salem, 1861.
The first vote, of G. BANGBOVT'S History of the United States (begun in 1834) ; last ed. 1876, 6 vols.
JOHN GORIIAM PALICBEY : History of New Jfotglantl. Boston, 1S61I-1874, 4 vols.
LEONARD BAOON : The Genesis of the New England Churches. New York, 1874.
HENBY MABTYN DBXTBB: As to Roger \Villiam.s and his • llanixhment' from the Massachusetts Planta-
tion; with a few further Words concerning the Baptists, the Quakers, and IteliyiouH Liberty. Boston, 1876
(Congregational Publishing Society). A vindication of the Muswichueetis Colony against the charge
of intolerance.
Numerous essays and reviews relating to the Congregational polity and doctrine and the history of
Congregational Churches may be found in the volumes of the following periodicals:
A mcrican Quarterly Register. Boston, Mass. 1827-1843, 15 vote,
The Christian Spectator. 1st series monthly ; 2(1 series quarterly. New Haven, 1819-1838, 20 vols.
The New-JSngla/ruier, quarterly (continued). New Ilnvcn, 1S45J-1870, 84 vols.
The Congregational Quarterly (continued). Boston, Mass. l*t series, 1859-1868, 10 vols. ; 2d series,
1869-1876, 8 vols.
The Congregational Year-nook. New York, 1854-18159, 5 vols.
Other light is thrown on the Congregational history and polity by Results of Councils, many of which,
In cases of peculiar interest, have been published in pamphlet form.
(3) Congregational Polity.
Congregational Order. TJte Ancient Platforms of tlw Congregational Churches of New England, uith a
Digest of Rules and Zftqjw in QonnMticvL 7*«W. ty/ direction of the General AwoHation of Connecticut.
Middletown, Conn. 1840. [Edited by LKONAWD BAOON, DAVID D. Fuai>, TIMOTHY P. GIUJW.]
THOMAS C.UPHAM: Ratio IXMtplinte; or, The. Constitution of the Congregational Churches, Examined
nnd Deduced from Karly Congregational Writers, and other JUcclesiaatical Authorities, and from Usage.
2d edttion. Portland, 1844.
PBKSTON CiiMMtNOs; A Dictionary of Congregational Usages awl Frfwiyhn ofrtmhnfi to Ancient and
Modern Authors; to which are aflflfil brief Notices of some, of the JWiiefjtMtl Writer*, AtwemWie*, and
Treatises referred to in the Compilation. Boston, 1852.
GROROK PuNCUAtti): A View of ftwrMattimallmn., its Prinatplp* anil Doctrine*; the Testimony of
JScckttimtical Utetorii in itn /fynr, ?7« /'rnrttw, awl ?7« Adrantagen. List edition, 1H40.] Third edition,
revised and enlarged. Boston (CJoiurrog. Bi»ard of Publication), 1856.
HBNBY MABTYN BBXTRIB: Congregationalism : What it is; Whence it is; How it Works; Why it is
Setter than any other Form cf Church Government. Boston, 1865 ; Oth ed. revised, 1879.
Congregationalism has its name from the prominence it gives to the
particular congregation as distinct from the general Church.1 It aims
1 This term is preferable to Independency. In England both terms are used synonymous-
822 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
to establish a congregation of real believers or converts, and it declares
such a congregation to be independent of outward jurisdiction, whether
it be that of a king or a bishop or a presbytery. Under the first
aspect it has several precedents ; under the latter aspect it forms a new
chapter in Church history, or at least it carries the protest against for-
eign jurisdiction a great deal farther than the Keformers, who protest-
ed against the tyrannical authority of the papacy, but recognized some
governmental jurisdiction over local congregations.
CONGREGATIONS IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE.
In the New Testament the word church or congregation^ denotes
sometimes the Church universal, the whole body of Christian believers
spread throughout the world;2 sometimes a particular congregation at
Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, Home, or any other place.3 The congre-
gations are related to the Church as members to the body. The de-
nominational and sectarian use of the word is foreign to the Scriptures,
which know of no sect but the sect called Christians.4 Denominations
or Confessions are the growth of history and adaptations of Christian-
ity to the differences of race, nationality, and psychological constitution ;
and after fulfilling their mission they will, as to their human imper-
fections and antagonisms, disappear in the one kingdom of Christ,
which, however, in the beauty of its living unity and harmony, will
include an endless variety.
An organized local congregation in the apostolic age was a company
of saints,5 or a self-supporting and self-governing society of Christian
believers, with their offspring, voluntarily associated for purposes of
worship, growth in holiness, and the promotion of Christ's kingdom.
The Apostolic churches were not free from imperfection and cor-
Iy. The American Congregationalists rather disclaim the designation Independents, except
for a small portion of their ancestors, namely, the * Pilgrim Fathers' of Plymouth. See below.
1 8KK\T](jia, from sKicaXicjj to call out, means (like ^ «!)!{•?) any public assembly, but especially
a religious assembly.
3 Matt. xvi. 18 ; Acts xx. 28 ; Gal. i. 1 3 ; Eph. i. 22, etc.
3 Matt, xviii. 17; Acts v. 1 1 ; viii. 3 ; xv. 41 (in the plural, at iKicXijffiat) ; Gal. i. 22 ; Rom.
xvi. 4, 5, etc.
*Comp. Acts xi. 2G; xxvi. 28; 1 Pet. iv. 16. There were parties or sects among the
Christians at Corinth which assumed apostolic designations, but Paul rebuked them (1 Cor.
i. 10-13 ; iii. 3, 4). The tribes of Israel may be quoted as a Jewish precedent of the divisions
In Christendom, but they formed one nation.
* eKK\r)<riai rwv ciyiW, 1 Cor. xiv. 33.
§ 101. THE CONGREGATIONALISTS. 823
ruption, but they were separated from the surrounding world of un-
believers, and constantly reminded of their high and holy calling.
THE ANTE-NICENE OHUKOHES.
In the ante-Nicene age a distinction was made between the church
of believers or communicant members and the church of catechumens
or hearers who were in course of preparation for membership, but not
allowed to partake of the communion.1 Public worship was accord-
ingly divided into the service of the faithful (missafidelium) and the
service of the catechumens (missed catechumenorum).
MIXTURE OF THE CHURCH WITH THE WORLD.
With the union of Church and State since Oonstantine the original
idea of a church of real believers was gradually lost, and became
identical with a parish which embraced all nominal Christians in a
particular place or district Baptism, confirmation, and attendance at
communion were made obligatory upon all residents, whether converted
or not, and every citizen was supposed to be a Christian.3 The distinc-
tion between the Church and the world was well-nigh obliterated, and
the Church at large became a secular empire with an Italian sovereign
at its head. Hence the complaint of Dante (in Milton's rendering) :
* Ah ! Constantino, of how much ill was cause,
Not thy conversion, but those rich domains
That the first wealthy Pope received of thee!'
ATTEMPTS TO RESTORE THE PURITY OF THE CHURCH.
Monasticism was an attempt in the Catholic Church itself to save
the purity of the congregation by founding convents and nunneries
secluded not only from the world, but also from all ties of domestic
and social life. It drained the Church of many of its best elements,
and left the mass more corrupt.
The Bohemian Brethren and the Waldenses introduced strict con-
gregational discipline in opposition to the ruling Church.
The Reformers of the sixteenth century deplored the want of truly
1 Comp. the modern American distinction between church proper and congregation.
* The Jews— like the ' untaxed Indians ' in the United States— were excluded from the
rights of citizenship, and JIR unmercifully persecuted during the Middle Ages as the Christian*
were persecuted hy the Jews in the apostolic age,
VOL. L— G G G
824 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Christian congregations after the apostolic model, and wished to revive
them, but Luther and Zwingli gave it up in despair from the want of
material for congregational self-government (which can never be de-
veloped without an opportunity and actual experiment).
Calvin was more in earnest, and astonished the world by founding
in Geneva a flourishing Christian commonwealth of the strictest dis-
cipline, such as had not been seen since the age of the Apostles. But
it was based on a close union of the civil and ecclesiastical power,
which destroyed the voluntary feature, and ended at last in the same
confusion of the Church and the world.
The Anabaptists and Mennonites emphasized the voluntary princi-
ple and the necessity of discipline, but they injured their cause by
fanatical excesses.
The German Pietists of the school of Spener and Francke realized
their idea of ecolesiolce in ecclesia, or select congenial circles within
the outward organization of the promiscuous national Church, from
which they never separated. Wesley did originally the same tiling,
but his movement resulted in a new denomination.
The Moravians went farther, and established separate Christian col-
onies, which in the period of rationalism and infidelity were like
beacon-lights in the surrounding darkness.
ENGLISH AND AMERICAN CONGREGATIONALISM,
English and American Congregationalism, or Congregationalism as
a distinct denomination, arose among the Puritans during the latter
part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. It was at first identified with
the name of the Eev. Kobert Browne, and called Brownism ; but, be-
ing an unworthy representative and an apostate from his principles,
he was disowned.1 It had other and more worthy pioneers, such as
Barrowe, Greenwood, Johnson, Ainsworth, Penry, and especially John
Robinson.2 The Independents were, like every new sect, persecuted
1 Kobert Browne, a clergyman of the Established Church and a restless agitator, urged a
reformation ' without tarrying for any,' a complete separation from the national Church as
an anti-Christian institution, and the formation of independent Christian societies. After
suffering persecution and exile (he was imprisoned about thirty times), he returned to the
ministry of the national Church, where he led an idle and dissolute life till his death, in 1630,
at the age of eighty years.
8 See on these early witnesses and martyrs of Independency, Hanbury (Vol. I. chaps.
ii,-xxvi.), Brook (Vol. III.), and Funchard (Vol. III.),
§ 101. THE CONGREGATIONALISTS. 825
under the reigns of James and Charles L, and obliged to seek shelter
first in Holland and then in the wilderness of New England.
But with the opening of the Long Parliament, which promised to
inaugurate a jubilee to all tender consciences, they began to breathe
freely, and hastened to return from exile; 'for/ says Fuller, 'only
England is England indeed, though some parts of Holland may be
like unto it.'1 They had a considerable share in the labors of the
Westminster Assembly of Divines, especially through Dr. Goodwin
and Kev. Philip Nye, who are styled the 'patriarchs' of orthodox
Independency. They became the ruling political and religious power
in England during the short protectorate of Cromwell, and furnished
the majority to his ecclesiastical commission, called the Triers. After
the Restoration they were . again persecuted, being held chiefly re-
sponsible for the execution of King Charles and the overthrow of
the monarchy. In 1689 they acquired toleration, and are now one
of the most intelligent, active, and influential among the Dissenting
bodies in England.
The classical soil of Congregationalism is New England, where it
established * a Church without a bishop and a State without a king.'
From New England it spread into the far West, to the shores of the
Pacific Ocean, and exerted a powerful influence upon other Churches.
Puritan Congregationalism is the father of New England and one
of the grandfathers of the American Republic, and it need not be
ashamed of its children.2 It lacks a proper appreciation of histor-
1 Vol. VI. p. 280.
a I beg leave to quote from an essay which I wrote and published in the midst of our civil
war (1 803), when New England was most unpopular, the following tribute to its influence
upon American history : * It seems superfluous, even in these days of sectional prejudice,
party animosity, and slander, to say one word in praise of New England. Facts and insti-
tutions always speak best for themselves. Wo /night say with Daniel Webster, giving his
famous eulogy on Massachusetts a more general application to her five sister States : "There
they stand : look at them, and judge for yourselves. There is their history— the world knows
it by heart : the past at least is secure." The rapid rise and progress of that rocky and bar-
ren country called New England is one of the marvels of modern history. In the short
period of two centuries and a half it has attained the height of modern civilization which it
required other countries more than a thousand years to reach. Naturally the poorest part
of the United States, it has become the intellectual garden, the busy workshop, and the think-
ing brain of this vast republic. In general wealth and prosperity, in energy and enterprise,
in lovo of freedom and respect for law, in the diffusion of intelligence and education, in letters
and arts, in virtue and religion, in every essential feature of mitionnl power and greatness, the
people of the six New England States, and more particularly of Massachusetts, need not fear
a comparison with the most favored nation on the globe, But the power and influence of
826 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
ical Christianity and its claims upon our regard and obedience ; but
by bringing to light the manhood and freedom of the Christian peo-
ple, and the rights and privileges of individual congregations, it marks
a real progress in the development of Protestantism, and has leavened
other Protestant denominations in America; for here congregations
justly claim and exercise a ranch larger share, and have consequently
a much deeper interest in the management of their own affairs than
in the State Churches of Europe. The Congregational system implies,
of course, the power of self-government and a living faith in Christ,
without which it would be no government at all. It moreover requires
the cementing power of fellowship,
INDEPENDENCY AND FELLOWSHIP.
Anglo-American Congregationalism has two tap roots, independency
and fellowship, on the basis of the Puritan or Calvinistic faith. It suc-
ceeds in the measure of its ability to adjust and harmonize them. It
is a compromise between pure Independency and Presbyterianism. It
must die without freedom, and it can not live without authority. In-
dependency without fellowship is ecclesiastical atomism; fellowship
without Independency leads to Presbyterianism or Episcopacy.1
It starts from the idea of an apostolic congregation as an organized
New England, owing to the enterprising and restless character of its population, extends far
beyond its own limits, and is almost omnipresent in the United States. The twenty thousand
Puritans who emigrated from England within the course of twenty years, from 1620 to 1640,
and received but few accessions until the modern flood of mixed European immigration set
in, have grown into a race of several millions, diffused themselves more or less into every
State of the Union, and take a leading part in the organization and development of every
new State of the great West to the shores of the Pacific. Their principles have acted
like leaven upon American society ; their influence reaches into all the ramifications of our
commerce, manufactures, politics, literature, and religion ; there is hardly a Protestant Church
or Sabbath-school in the land, from Boston to San Francisco, which does not feel, directly or
indirectly, positively or negatively, the intellectual and moral power that constantly ema-
nates from the classical soil of Puritan Christianity.1
1 Dr. Emmons, one of the leaders of New England Congregationalism, is credited with
this memorable dictum: e Associationism leads to Consociationism ; Consociationism leads
to Presbyterianism; Presbyterianism leads to Episcopacy; Episcopacy leads to Roman
Catholicism ; and Roman Catholicism is an ultimate fact ' (Prof. Park, in Memoir of Em-
mons, p. 163). But there would be equal force in the opposite reasoning from Independency
to anarchy, and from anarchy to dissolution. Independents have a right to protest against
tyranny, whether exercised by bishops or presbyters ('priests writ large'); but there are Lord
Brethren as well as Lord Bishops, and the tyranny of a congregation over a minister, or of si
majority over a minority, is as bad as any other kind of tyranny.
£101. THE CONGREGATIONALISTS. 827
brotherhood of converted believers in Christ. This was the common
ground of the Westminster divines.1 But they parted on the question
of jurisdiction and the relation of the local congregation to the Church
general. The Independents denied the authority of presbyteries and
synods, and maintained that each congregation properly constituted is
directly dependent on Christ, and subject to his law, and his law only.
The whole power of the keys is vested in these individual churches.
At the same time, however, it is admitted and demanded that there
should be a free fraternal intercommunion between them, with the
rights and duties of advice, reproof, and co-operation in every Chris-
tian work.
This fellowship manifests itself in the forms of Councils, Associations
(in Massachusetts), Consociations (in Connecticut), on a larger scale in
c the Congregational Union of England and Wales,' and c the National
Council of the Congregational Churches in the United States.5 It is
this fellowship which gives Congregationalism the character of a de-
nomination among other denominations. But the principle of congre-
gational sovereignty is guarded by denying to those general meetings
any legislative authority, and reducing them simply to advisory bodies.2
There were from the start two tendencies among Congregationalists —
the extreme Independents or Separatists, of whom the ' Pilgrim Fathers'
are the noblest representatives, and the more churchly Independents,
who remained in the English Church, and who established on a Cal-
vinistic theocratic basis the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. John
Kobinson, the Moses of American Independency, who accompanied
his flock to the deck of the Speedwell, but never saw the promised
1 ' The Form of Presbyterial Church Government agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines
at Westminster/ and adopted by the General Assembly of Scotland in 1G45, thus defines a
local Church : ' Particular churches in the primitive times were made up of visible saints,
viz., such as, being of age, professed faith in Christ and obedience unto Christ, according to
the rules of faith and life taught by Christ and his apostles, and of their children.' The
Form of Government ratified by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the
United States in May, 1821, gives this definition (Ch. II. 4): 'A particular church consists
of a number of professing Christians, with their offspring, voluntarily associated together for
divine worship and godly living, agreeably to the Holy Scriptures, and submitting to a cei*
tain form of government.'
a The most serious conflict between the principles of Independency and Fellowship in recent
times has grown out of the unhappy Beecher trial, which has shaken American Congrega-
tionalism to the very base. See Proceedings of 'the two Councils held in Brooklyn in 1874
and 1870, which represent both sides of the question (Dr. Storrs's and Mr. Beecher's), though
presided over by the same Nestor of American Congregationalism (Dr. Leonard Bacon).
828 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
land himself, was a separatist from the Church of England, though he
disowned Brownism with its extravagances. His colony at Plymouth
were Separatists. The settlers of Boston, Salem, Hartford, and New
Haven, on the other hand, were simply Nonconformists within the
Church of England. Their ministers— John Cotton, Richard Mather,
Thomas Hooker, John Davenport, Samuel Stone, and others— were
trained in the English Universities, mostly in Cambridge,1 and had
received Episcopal ordination. They rejected the term Independents,
and inconsistently relapsed into the old notion of uniformity in re-
ligion, with an outburst of the dark spirit of persecution. But this
was only temporary. American Congregationalism at present is a
compromise between the two tendencies, and vacillates between them,
leaning sometimes to the one, sometimes to the other side.
CONGREGATIONALISM AND CREEDS.
The effect of the Congregational polity upon creeds is to weaken
the authority of general creeds and to strengthen the authority of par-
ticular creeds. The principle of fellowship requires a general creed,
but it is reduced to a mere declaration of the common faith prevailing
among Congregationalists at a given time, instead of a binding formula
of subscription. The principle of independency calls for as many par-
ticular creeds as there are congregations. Each congregation, being a
complete self-governing body, has the right to frame its own creed, to
change it ad libitum, and to require assent to it not only from the
minister, but from every applicant for membership. Hence there are
a great many creeds among American Congregationalists which have
purely local authority; but they must be in essential harmony with
the prevailing faith of the body, or the congregations professing
them forfeit the privileges of fellowship. They must flow from the
same system of doctrine, as many little streams flow from the same
fountain.
In this multiplication of local creeds Congregationalism far outstrips
the practice of the ante-Nicene age, where we find varying yet essen^
1 Masson (Life of Milton, Vol. II. p. 563) says that of seventeen noted ministers who emi-
grated to New England, fourteen were bred in Cambridge, and only three (Davenport, Mather,
and Williams) at Oxford. R. Williams was probably likewise a Cambridge graduate. It was
therefore natural that the first college in New England should be called after Cambridge.
§ 102. ENGLISH CONGREGATIONAL CREEDS. 829
tially concordant rules of faith in Jerusalem, Caesarea, Antioch, Aqui-
leja, Carthage, Eoine.
With these local creeds are connected 'covenants' or pledges of
members to live conformably to the law of God and the faith and dis-
cipline of the Church. A covenant is the ethical application of the
dogmatic creed.
In the theory of creeds and covenants, as on the whole subject of
Church polity, the Eegular or Calvinistic Baptists entirely agree with
the Congregationalists.
§ 102. ENGLISH CONGREGATIONAL CREEDS.
Literature.
A | DECLARATION [ of the \ FAITH and OE»ER | Owned and practised in the \ CONGREGATIONAL CinraonKs
| in | ENGLAND ; | Agreed upon and consented' unto { by their \ ELDERS AND MESSENGERS | in ( their
MEETING at the SAVOY, | Qctob. 12, 1658. | London | Printed for D.L. And are to be sold in Paul's Church-
yard, Fleet | Street, and Westminster Hall, 16C9.
A Latin edition appeared in 1662 at Utrecht, under the title, Confessio nuper edita Independentium seu
Congregationalium in Anglia.
The Preface, the Platform, and those doctrinal articles which differ from the Westminster Confession
arc printed in Vol. III. pp. TOT sqq., from the first London edition. The Savoy Declaration, without the
Preface, is also given by HANBURY, Memorials^ Vol. III. pp. 517 sqq. ; and by Dr. A. H. QUINT, in the • Con-
gregational Quarterly' for July and October, 1866 (Vol. VIII. pp. 241-267 and 341-844).
On the Savoy meeting, comp. HANWURY, Jtfemon'ate, Vol. III. pp. 515 sqq.
THE SAVOY DECLARATION. A.D. 1658.
We now proceed to the general creeds or declarations of faith
which have been approved by the Congregational Churches in Eng-
land and America. They agree substantially with the Westminster
Confession, or the Calvinistic system of doctrine, but differ from
Presbyterianism by rejecting the legislative and judicial authority
of presbyteries and synods, and by maintaining the independence
of the local churches. In the course of time the rigor of old Cal-
vinism has relaxed, both in England and America. ' New England
theology,9 as it is called, attempts to find a via media between Cal-
vinism and Arminianism in anthropology and soteriology. But the
old standards still remain unrepealed.
The first and fundamental Congregational confession of faith and
platform of polity is the SAVOY DJBCLAKATION, so called from the
place where it was composed and adopted.1
1 The Savoy, in the Strand, London, is remarkable for its historical associations. The
palace, on the banks of the Thames, was built by Peter, Earl of Savoy and Richmond, in
1245; enlarged and beautified by Henry, Duke of Lancaster, 1828. King John II., of
830 THE CBEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
The position of the Congregationalists during the short period of
their ascendency under Cromwell's Protectorate (1653-1658) was
rather anomalous. They were by no means so strongly committed
to the voluntary principle and against a national Church as to re-
fuse appointments in the universities and parish churches, with the
tithes and other emoluments connected therewith. Dr. Goodwin was
President of Magdalen College, Cambridge; Dr. Owen, Dean of
Christ Church and Vice-Chancellor at Oxford ; Philip Nye, Eector
of St. Bartholomew's, London ; Joseph Caryl, Eector of St. Mary
Magnus; William Greenhill, incumbent of the village of Stepney;
William Bridge, town lecturer at Yarmouth ; John Howe, parish min-
ister at Torrington, and afterwards court chaplain to Cromwell until
his death.1 Cromwell himself had no idea of disconnecting the gov-
ernment from religion. Christianity was fully recognized under his
rule as part and parcel of the law of the land. It accompanied with
its solemn worship the ordinary business of Parliament. Public fasts
were frequently appointed by the Protector (to which the Presby-
terians objected as an Erastian intrusion), and lasted usually from
nine in the morning until four in the afternoon. The rights of patron-
age were not disturbed ; the tithes and other provisions for the sup-
port of the clergy and the repair of churches were continued. A
commission of Triers, or judicial examiners, one fourth of whom were
laymen, was appointed to test the fitness of clerical applicants and to
remove unworthy incumbents, and Church boards of gentry and clergy
were set up in every county for the supervision of ecclesiastical affairs.
The Triers took the place of the late Westminster Assembly in its
administrative work, but were less numerous, and included Independ-
ents, Presbyterians, and Baptists. Dr. Owen, Goodwin, and Manton
belonged to them, besides others of less wisdom and charity. They
were subject to a certain Erastian control by the Protector and his
France, while a prisoner in England, resided there (1357-63). It was burned in Wat Tyler's
insurrection, 1381 ; rebuilt and endowed as a hospital by Henry VII., 1505. It was the city
residence of the Bishop of London. The royal chapel was burned down in 1 864, but beauti-
fully restored by Queen Victoria, and reopened Nov. 26, 1865. The Congregational meeting
of 1658 must not be confounded with the * Savoy Conference' between Episcopalians and
Presbyterians which was held there from April 15 to July 25, 1661.
1 Comp. Stoughton, Church of the Commonwealth^ ch. ix. pp. 207 sqq. A number of th0
Baptists likewise accepted preferments under the Protectorate. See ib. p. 242, and Ivimey's
list of Baptists who were ejected at the Eestoration, History of Baptists, Vol. I. p. 328.
§ 102. ENGLISH CONGREGATIONAL C&EEDS. 831
Council of State, but left to decide each case according to their best
j udgment, without imposing any creed or canon or statute. The plan
seems to have worked well, and furnished the country, as Baxter says,
who was no friend of Cromwell, with ' able, serious preachers, who
lived a godly life, of what tolerable opinion soever they were.3 Crom-
well's Protectorate was too short to develop a full system of ecclesias-
tical polity. It was a government of experiments in accommodation
to existing circumstances. Upon the whole, it was more tolerant than
any previous reign, but only to Puritanism and such Protestant sects
as recognized the Scriptures and the fundamentals of the Christian
faith ; while it was intolerant to Komanists, Socinians, and Episcopal
royalists, who endangered his government In his foreign policy Crom-
well was the boldest protector of Protestantism and religious liberty
that England has ever produced.1
Under these favorable circumstances, and in view of the successful
establishment of an exclusively Congregational commonwealth by their
transatlantic brethren, the Independents might think of repeating in
a milder form the experiment of the Westminster Assembly to secure
at least a certain degree of religious uniformity in England, with a
limited amount of toleration to orthodox dissenters. Their great pro-
tector did not seem to favor such a scheme, but shortly before his death
he reluctantly gave his consent to 'the humble petition and advice' of
influential members of Parliament to issue a confession of faith for
the whole kingdom, yet ' without compelling the people thereto by
penalties,' and to extend liberty to all Christian professions, except
* popery or prelacy,' or such as ' publish horrid blasphemies or practice
or hold forth licentiousness or profaneness under the profession of
1 Comp. Stoughton, 1. c. pp. 81 sqq. Green (History of the English People^ p. 573) judges
upon the whole quite favorably of Cromwell's ecclesiastical polity: cln England, Cromwell
dealt with the Royalists as irreconcilable enemies ; but in every other respect he carried out
fairly his pledge of "healing and settling." . . . From the Church, which was thus reorgan-
ized, all power of interference with faiths differing from its own was resolutely withheld.
Cromwell remained true to his great cause of religious liberty. Even the Quaker, rejected
by all other Christian bodies as an anarchist and blasphemer, found sympathy and protection
in Cromwell. The Jews had been excluded from England since the reign of Edward the First ;
and a prayer which they now presented for leave to return was refused by the commission of
merchants and divines to whom the Protector referred it for consideration. But the refusal
was quietly passed over, and the connivance of Cromwell in the settlement of a few Hebrews
in London and Oxford was so clearly understood that no one ventured to interfere with
them/
$32 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Christ.' A notice from the clerk of the Council of State summoned
the Congregational churches, in and near London, to a meeting in the
Savoy, but it was not held till twenty-six days after Cromwell's death.
About two hundred delegates from one hundred and twenty congre-
gations attended the Conference, which lasted from Sept. 29 till Oct.
12, 1658. They agreed unanimously upon the Confession and Order
of Discipline. It was regarded by them, in the language of the Pref-
ace, c as a great and special work of the Holy Ghost that so numerous
a company of ministers and other principal brethren should so readily ,
speedily^ and jointly give up themselves unto such a whole body of
truths that are after godliness.'
The Savoy Declaration is the work of a committee, consisting of
Drs. Goodwin, Owen, Nye, Bridge, Caryl, and Greenhill, who had been
members of the Westminster Assembly, with the exception of Dr. Owen.
It contains a lengthy Preface (fourteen pages), the Westminster Con-
fession of Faith with sundry changes (twenty-two pages), and a Plat-
form of Church Polity (five pages).
1. The PREFACE is prolix and indifferently written, but deserves
notice for inaugurating a more liberal view of the authority of
creeds and the toleration of other creeds. The chief ideas are these :
To confess our faith is an indispensable duty we owe to God as
much as prayer. Public confessions are a means of expressing the
common faith, but ought not to be enforced. < Whatever is of force
or constraint in matters of this nature causes them to degenerate
from the name and nature of Confessions, and turns them into
Exactions and Impositions of Faith? With this we should ac-
knowledge 'the great principle that among all Christian States and
Churches there ought to be vouchsafed a forbearance and mutual
indulgence unto saints of all persuasions that keep unto and hold
fast the necessary foundations of faith and holiness, in all other mat-
ters extra-fundamental, whether of faith or order.'
This was a considerable step beyond the prevailing notion of uni-
formity, although it falls far short of the modern theory of religious
liberty. The Preface goes on to guard itself against the charge of
indifference or carelessness.
2. THE DECLARATION OF FAITH. This is a slight modification of the
Westminster Confession. < To this Confession,3 the Preface states, £ we
§ 102. ENGLISH CONGREGATIONAL CREEDS. 833
fully assent, as do our brethren of New England and the churches
also of Scotland, as each in their general synods have testified. A
few things we have added for obviating some erroneous opinions, and
made other additions and alterations in method here and there, and
some clearer explanations as we found occasion.3 The Declaration is
divided into thirty-two chapters, in the same order as the Westminster
Confession, which has thirty-three chapters. In the exceptions taken
the Savoy Council followed the example set by the Long Parliament
in its edition of the Westminster Confession. The only important
changes refer to matters of Church government and discipline. Chaps.
XXX., < Of Church Censures,' and XXXI., < Of Synods and Councils,'
are omitted altogether. Chaps. XXIII. (XXIV.), < Of the Civil Magis-
trates,3 XXIV. (XXV.), < Of Marriage and Divorce,3 and XXVI., < Of
the Church,3 are modified. Chap. XX., c Of the Gospel,3 in the Savoy
Declaration, is inserted, and hence the difference in the numbering
of the remaining chapters. The change in Chap. XXIV. is a decided
improvement, if we judge it from the American theory of Church and
State. A similar and more thorough change was subsequently made
by the American Presbyterians in the Westminster Confession.
3. The Declaration of c the INSTITUTION OF CHURCHES and the ORDER
appointed in them by Jesus Christ3 contains the principles of the Con-
gregational Church polity which we have already explained. Similar
Platforms of Discipline, as they are called, have been issued from
time to time by the American Congregationalists — at Cambridge,
1648, at Saybrook, 1708, and at Boston, 1865.
THE DECLARATION OF 1833.
This is a popular abridgment of the older confessions, and presents
a milder form of Calvinism. It was prepared in 1833 by the Rev. Dr.
Bedford, of Worcester, and other members of a committee of the
* Congregational Union of England and Wales,' which was organized
in 1831. It is annually printed in the c Congregational Year-Book,'
but it disclaims any authority as a standard of subscription.1
NOTE. — The "Rev. Dr. JOHH STOTJGHTON, of London, a leading divine and historian among
the English Independents, has kindly supplied me with the following statement concerning
the prevailing sentiment of that body on the authority of creeds, a statement which applies
largely to American Congregationalists in the present age :
1 See Vol III. pp. 730 s(ft.
834 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
* Looking at the principles of Congregationalism, which involve the repudiation of all hu-
man authority in matters of religion, it is impossible to believe that persons holding those
principles can consistently regard any ecclesiastical creed or symbol in the same way in
which Catholics, whether Roman or Anglicact, regard the creeds of the ancient Church.
There is a strong feeling among English Congregationalists against the use of such docu-
ments for the purpose of defining the limits of religious communion, or for the purpose of
checking the exercise of sober, free inquiry ; and there is also a widely spread conviction that
it is impossible to reduce the expression of Christian belief to a series of logical propositions,
so as to preserve and represent the full spirit of gospel truth. No doubt there may be hear. I
in some circles a great deal of loose conversation seeming to indicate such a repugnance to
the employment of creeds as would imply a dislike to any formal definition of Christian doc-
trine whatever ; but I apprehend that the prevailing sentiment relative to this subject among
our ministers and churches does not go beyond the point just indicated. Many consider that
while creeds are objectionable as tests and imperfect as confessions, yet they may have a cer-
tain value as manifestoes of conviction on the part of religious communities.
6 The Westminster Assembly's Catechism never had the authority in Congregational church-
es which from the beginning it possessed in the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and its use
in schools and families for educational purposes, once very common, has diminished of late
years to a very low degree. The Savoy Declaration, which perhaps never had much weight
with Congregationalists, is a document now little known, except by historical students. The
Declaration of 1833 was prepared by a committee of the Congregational Union, of which the
Rev. Dr. Redford, of Worcester, was a member. He, I believe, drew up the Articles, and it
was only in accordance with his well-known character as a zealous antagonist of human au-
thority in religion that he introduced the following passages in the preliminary notes :
' " It is not designed, in the following summary, to do more than to state the leading doc-
trines of faith and order maintained by Congregational churches in general,
* "It is not intended that the following statement should be put forth with any authority,
or as a standard to which assent should be required.
' "Disallowing the utility of creeds and articles of religion as a bond of union, and protest-
ing against subscription to any human formularies as a term of communion, Congrega-
tionalists are yet willing to declare, for general information, what is commonly believed
among them, reserving to every one the most perfect liberty of conscience."
* It would be well to insert a statement made to me by one who from his official position
has the best means of ascertaining the state of opinion in our churches :
' "I do not believe that the Declaration of 1833 could now with success be submitted for
adoption to an Assembly of the Congregational Union ; in part, because not a few would dis-
pute its position, and in part because many more — I believe the majority — without objecting
on strictly doctrinal grounds, would object on grounds of policy. "
' I may add to this, in the words of the Dean of Westminster, who wrote them on the au-
thority of " a respected Congregational minister," that, beyond care in the matter of ordina-
tion, "no measures are adopted or felt to be either desirable or necessary for preserving
uniformity of doctrine, excepting only that the trust-deeds of most of their places of worship
contain a reference to leading points of doctrine to which the minister may be required to
express his assent. In practice this is merely a provision against any decided departure from
the faith as commonly received among us, the trustees of the property having it in their
power to refuse the use of the building to any minister whose teaching may be contrary to
the doctrines contained in the deed. Such cases, however, are extremely rare."
'In some cases trust-deeds make reference to the Declaration of 1833, as containing the
doctrines to be taught in substance within the places of worship secured by such deeds j
but in most cases a brief schedule of doctrines is employed, of which the following is an
example :
* " 1. The divine and special inspiration of the holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testa-
ment, and their supreme authority in faith and practice
§ 103. AMERICAN CONGREGATIONAL CREEDS. 835
' " 2. The unity of God. The Deity of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
* " 3. The depravity of man, and the absolute necessity of the Holy Spirit's agency in
man's regeneration and sanctification.
' " 4. The incarnation of the Son of God, in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ ; the uni-
versal sufficiency of the atonement by his death ; and the free justification of sinners by faith
alone in him.
4 " 5. Salvation by grace, and the duty of all who hear the gospel to believe in Christ.
* "(>. The resurrection of the dead and the final judgment, when the wicked 'shall go
$,way into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal. ' "
*The Secretary of our Chapel Building Society informs me that "one reason for the dis-
ise of the Declaration may be its length, and the circumstance that, to put it beyond question
\vhat document is meant, it has been thought it would be needful to embody it in the deed,
which would add to the cost."
'It has been remarked, on the authority of one already cited, "that, notwithstanding the
absence of tests, there is among Independents a marked uniformity of opinion on all impor-
tant points." Perhaps this statement, still true on the whole, would require more qualifica-
tion than it did some years ago. There are among us a few men of mental vigor who have
departed very considerably from the published creeds of Congregationalism. There may
be a larger number whose opinions are of an Arminian cast ; but, again to use language
supplied by a friend, in whom I place confidence as to this subject : " It would still be fair,
I think, to describe our ministry as moderately Calvinistic. An immense majority of the
ministers are so. An impression to the contrary has, I am aware, become prevalent ; but
that is owing, I believe, to the fact that the greater number of the men who have departed
from the Calvinistic type hold prominent positions, and have ' the habit of the pen.' " It is
a difficult and delicate task to report the state of large religious communities among whose
members there exist some diversities of opinion. One person biased by his own predilections
will give one account, and another person under an influence of the same kind will give
another.
' In what I have said I have endeavored to be as impartial as possible ; and, to give the
more weight to my statements, I have sought the assistance of official brethren who have
wider means of information than I possess, and who may look at things from points of view
not exactly identical with my own.7
§ 103. AMERICAN CONGREGATIONAL CREEDS.
Literature.
Special essays relating to the creeds and Church order of American Congregatioualists.
The Formation of Creeds. Article by the Rev. JOSEPH P. THOMPSON in the * New-Englander,' Vol. IV.
pp. 206-274. 1846.
Congregationalism and, Symbolism. Article by the Rev. WM. G. T. Sin«>i> in the * Bibliotheca Sacra,'
Vol. XV. pp. 601-690. 1858. (An argument showing the need of a more positive creed for Congrega-
tionalism.)
Confessions of Faith. Article by the Rev. EDWARD W. OILMAN in the 'Congregational Quarterly,1
Vol. IV. pp. 179-101. 1862.
Declaration of Faith and the Confession. Article by the Rev. EDWABD A. LAWKBNOB. Ib. Vol. VIII.
pp. 178-190. 1866.
Ancient Confessions of Faith and Fomily Covenants. By E. W. G. Ib. Vol. XI. pp. 516-827. 1869.
The National Council (of 1871). Article by Dr. A, H. QUINT in the « Cong. Quarterly, ' Vol. XIV. pp. 61*
80. 1871
The American Gongregationalists have from time to time adopted
the Westminster standards of doctrine, with the exception of the sec-
tions relating to synodical Church government. Formerly the Assem-
bly's Shorter Catechism was taught in all the schools of New England ;
836 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
but of late years those standards have gone much out of use, though
they have never been disowned.
THE SYNOD OF CAMBRIDGE, 1648-1
The * Elders and Messengers of the churches assembled in the Synod
at Cambridge, in New England/ in June, 1648, adopted the West-
minster Confession one year after its publication, in these words:
'This Synod having perused and considered with much gladness of
heart, and thankfulness to God, the Confession of Faith published of
late by the reverend Assembly in England, do judge it to be very
holy, orthodox, and judicious in all matters of faith ; and do therefore
freely and fully consent thereunto, for the substance thereof. Only in
those things which have respect to Church government and discipline
[in some sections of Chaps. XXV., XXX., and XXXL] we refer our-
selves to the Platform of Church Discipline agreed upon by this present
assembly; and do therefore think it meet that this Confession of Faith
should be commended to the churches of Christ among us, and to the
honored court, as worthy of their consideration and acceptance. IIow-
beit, we may not conceal, that the doctrine of vocation, expressed in
Chap. X., § 1, and summarily repeated in Chap. XIII., § 1, passed not
without some debate. Yet considering that the term of vocation and
others by which it is described are capable of a large or more strict
sense or use, and that it is not intended to bind apprehensions precisely
in point of order or method, there hath been a general condescendency
thereunto. Now by this our professed consent and free concurrence
with them in all the doctrinals of religion, we hope it may appear to
the world that as we are a remnant of the people of the same nation
with them, so we are professors of the same common faith, and fellow-
heirs of the same common salvation.'
The Cambridge Synod thus anticipated by ten years the work of
the Savoy Conference (1658).
The Cambridge Platform, which is said to be the work of the Kev.
Richard Mather, sets forth in substance the same principles of inde-
pendent Church government and discipline as the Savoy Declaration.
1 * The Congregational Order ' above quoted contains the Cambridge Platform and the
Saybrook Platform, together with the * Saybrook Confession of Faith/ i. ^ the Savoy Con*
fession as previously adopted by the Synod of Boston*
§ 103. AMERICAN CONGREGATIONAL CREEDS. 83?
THE SYNOD OF BOSTON, 1680.
The Synod of Elders and Messengers of the New England Congre-
gational churches, held in Boston, Mass., May 12, 1680, adopted and
published the Savoy recension of the Westminster Confession, together
with the Cambridge Platform. It says, in the preface to its Declara-
tion :
' That which was consented unto by the Elders and Messengers of the Congregational
churches in England, who met at the Savoy (being for the most part, some small variations
excepted, the same with that which was agreed upon first by the Assembly at Westminster,
and was approved of by the Synod at Cambridge, in New England, anno 1648, as also by a
General Assembly in Scotland), was twice publicly read, examined, and approved of: that
little variation which we have made from the one, in compliance with the other, may be seen
by those who please to compare them. But we have (for the main) chosen to express our-
selves in the words of those reverend Assemblies, that so \ve might not only with one heart,
but with one mouth, glorify God and our Lord Jesus Christ.'1
THE SYNOD OF SAYBROOK, 1708.
The Elders and Messengers of the churches in the Colony of Con-
necticut assembled at Saybrook, Sept. 9, 1708, agreed that the Bos-
ton Confession should 'be recommended to the honorable general
assembly of this Colony, at the next session, for their public testimony
thereunto, as the faith of the churches of the Colony.' They also ac-
cepted c the Heads of Agreement assented to [in 1692] by the united
ministers [of England], formerly called Presbyterian and Congrega-
tional,' and so virtually gave indorsement to three creeds as essentially
teaching the same system — the doctrinal part of the Articles of the
Church of England, the Westminster Confession or Catechisms, and
the Confession agreed on at the Savoy.
THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF BOSTON, 1865.2
The National Council of Congregational clmrches of the United
States, held in the Old South Meeting-house of the city of Boston
after the close of the Civil War (which suggested this Council), in
1 The changes are very slight, and in part restorations of the Westminster text. They are
noted by Dr. Quint in the * Congregational Quarterly' for July, 18G6, p. 266.
8 Debates and Proceedings of the National Council of the Congregational Churches, held at
Boston, Mass., June 14-24, 1861). From the Phonographic Report by J. M. W. Yerrinton and
Henry M. P&Murst. Boston, Amer. Cong. Association, 1 86G (ed. tinder the care of the Rev.
A. H. QXJINT and the Kev. ISAAC P. LANawoaiHY), pp. 95-98, 344-847, 361-363, 401-408.
838 THE CBEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
the year 1865 (June H-24), adopted a 'Declaration of Faith.* This
Declaration passed through three transformations :
The first draft was prepared by a committee consisting of three
divines (two progressive, one conservative), viz., Dr. Joseph P. Thomp-
son (then Pastor of the Church of the Tabernacle, New York),
Dr. Edward A. Lawrence (Prof, in the Theol. Seminary of East
"Windsor [now at Hartford], Conn.), and Dr. George P. Fisher (Prof,
of Ecclesiastical History in Tale College). The Committee declined
to give a formulated statement of doctrines, but characterized, in a
comprehensive way, the doctrines held in common by the Congrega-
tional churches, and referred to the ancient Confessions of West-
minster and Savoy, as sufficiently answering the end of a substantial
unity in doctrine. This draft was read, discussed, and referred to a
larger committee.
The second draft was presented by the Kev. J. 0. Fiske, of Bath,
Maine, and in conformity with the usage of the councils at Cam-
bridge, 1648, at Boston, 1680, and at Saybrook, 1TO8, expresses ad-
herence to the Westminster and Savoy Confessions for * substance of
doctrine ' and the system of truths commonly known as * Calvinism,'
and emphasizes in opposition to modern infidelity the doctrine of the
Trinity, the incarnation, the atonement, and other fundamental arti-
cles of the common Christian faith.
The third draft was read by the Rev. Alonzo H. Quint, by direction
of the business committee, at a meeting of the Council held June 22d,
on Burial Hill, Plymouth, on the spot where the first meeting-house of
the Pilgrims stood, and which Dr. Bacon declared to be to Congrega-
tionalists 'the holiest spot of all the earth.' This paper was substan-
tially approved and referred to a committee of revision to improve the
form. This committee reported, Friday, June 23, through the Rev. Dr.
Steams, President of Amherst College, a number of slight verbal alter-
ations. In this improved form the Declaration was twice read * in a
distinct and impressive manner,' and after prayer by the Rev. Dr. Ray
Palmer, of New York, unanimously adopted by rising. The singing of
Dr. Palmer's well-known hymn, 'My faith looks up to thee/ and the
old doxology, < To God the Father, God the Son/ concluded the solem-
nity.1
1 The Boston Declaration is printed in Vol. III. p. 734.
§ 103. AMERICAN CONGREGATIONAL CREEDS. 839
The same Council adopted a new Platform of Discipline, called the
Boston Platform of 1865, and published by the Congregational Board.
This virtually supersedes the Cambridge and Saybrook Platforms.
THE OBEKLIN NATIONAL COUNCIL, 1871.
The Oberlin Council of 1871 is the first of a regular triennial series
of National Councils of the Congregational churches in the United
States.1 It adopted a constitution, one paragraph of which briefly re-
fers to the rule of faith in a very general way.2
NOTE. — Besides the creeds of General Councils, there are in use among American Congre-
gationalists a great number and variety of creeds, concerning which the Bev. EDWARD W.
OILMAN, D.D. (Secretary of the American Bible Society) kindly furnishes the following in-
formation :
* 1. STATE ASSOCIATIONS and CONFERENCES.
'The usage is various. The General Association of Massachusetts, founded in 1803, ac-
cepts as a basis of union "the doctrines of Christianity as they are generally expressed in
the Assembly's Shorter Catechism." So do the General Convention of Vermont, founded
1796, and the General Association of New Hampshire, founded 1747. The General Asso-
ciation of New York, founded 1834, has separate Articles of Faith. So has the General
Association of Illinois. The General Conferences of Maine and Connecticut have no ex-
press doctrinal basis.
* 2. COUNTY CONSOCIATIONS (of twenty or thirty churches).
'The Lincoln and Kennebec Consociation (Maine), 1808, recommended to its constituent
churches Articles of " Union, Faith, and Practice." The Northwestern Consociation (Ver-
mont), 1818, recommended to its churches a uniform Confession and Covenant. The latch-
field South Consociation (Conn.), 1828, prepared a Confession and Covenant for the general
use of its churches. The New Haven West Consociation (Conn.) admits only churches
which accept the doctrinal part of the Saybrook Platform.
* 8. INSTITUTIONS OF LEARNING.
* The Hollis Professor of Divinity in Harvard College must " declare it as his belief that
the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the only perfect rule of faith and practice,"
and the first incumbent (1722), being examined by the Corporation, declared his assent to the
Confession of Faith in the Assembly's Catechism and to the doctrinal Articles of the Church
of England. Assent to the Westminster Confession or the Saybrook Platform was required
of Professors in Yale College from 1753 to 1823. In the Theological Institution at Andover
both Visitors and Professors are required to subscribe a Declaration of Faith drawn up by
the founders in 1808, and to renew this declaration at intervals of five years.
* 4. LOCAL CHURCHES.
' The types are various, and while each church is at liberty to construct and alter its own
formulas, certain tendencies towards uniformity of usage, at different periods, are noticeable.
* (a) Individual Professions. Such were those made by John Cotton, at Charlestown, in
1 630, and by John Davenport, at New Haven, in 1639. (See the latter in Ancient Waymarlcs,
published at New Haven in 1853. See also Cong. Quarterly, 1860, Vol. XL p. 517.)
1 Formerly General Councils or Synods were held only occasionally (1637, 1646, 1648,
1 662, 1080, 1 708, 1852, 18C5), when some controversy or matter of special concern to all the
churches seemed to justify them.
a Printed in Vol. III. p. 737.
VOL. I. — BL ii H
$40 THE C&EEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
4 (b) Brief general references, either to the holy Scriptures as the only rule of belief and
duty, or to the Westminster Catechism or the Boston (i.e., Savoy) Confession, as agreeable to the
Scriptures. This usage came in at an early day, and was current at the beginning of this century.
4 (c) Articles of Faith, embracing in theological phraseology the outlines of a system of
divinity. After the year 1800 these came into general use as formulas for the reception of
members, and great reliance was placed upon them as helps in maintaining the purity of the
churches against the inroads of false doctrine. Candidates for admission to Church privileges
were required to give their assent to the several propositions, which thus in many cases were
made tests of worthiness. Dr. Samuel Worcester (Fitchburg, 1798) and Dr. E. D. Griffin,
the first pastor of the Park Street Church, Boston (1811), had much to do in shaping the prac*
tice of the churches from their day to the present time. Formulas of this class have, however,
been subjected to various modifications, by way of accommodation to individual opinions, or
for the sake of denying current error, or of emphasizing truths peculiar to the Calvinistic
system, but especially in order to secure brevity in the Church service. In this way it has
unfortunately sometimes happened that doctrines fundamental to Christianity have failed to
find a place in the formal Confession of Faith.
4 (d) Creeds divested of theological terms, and clothed in language so clear and simple and
general as to prevent no Christian from giving them his prompt and hearty assent. The
revisions of the last twenty years have been looking in this direction, and churches are be-
ginning to be formed with no other symbol of faith than the Apostles' Creed.'
§ 104. THE ANABAPTISTS ASTD MENNONITES.
Literature.
I. ON THE ANABAPTISTS.
The writings of Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Calvin, Bulliuger, and other Reformers and older di«
vines against the Anabaptists are polemical.
H. W. EBBKAM : Geschichte der Protest. Sekten im Zeitalter der Reformation. Hamburg und Gotha, 1848^
pp.479sqq.
COBNELITTS: Geschichte des Munsterischen Aufruhrs. Leipz. 1855 and 18GO, 2 vols.
KABL HASB : Das Reich d&r Wiedertaufer. Neue Propheten. 3d edition, Leipz. 1800.
BOUTEBWEOK: Zur Liter, und Geschichte der Wiedert&wfer. Bonn, 1805.
GEBH. UHLHOBN : Die Wiedertuufer in M&nster, in his Vermischte Vortrdge. Stuttgart, 1875, pp. 193 sqq,
Comp. also SOHBEIBEB'S Biography of Hubmaier, in his Taschenbuch f. Geschichte und Alter thum in
SMdeutschtand, 1839 and 1840.
II. ON THE MBNNONITES.
MKNNO SIMONS : Fundamentum, 1539, 1558, etc. ; Opera, Amst. 1046, 4to ; Opera omnia theologica^ Amat.
1681, in 1 vol. fol. (Both editions in Dutch.)
HBBM. SOHYN : ffistoria Christianornwi qui in Belgio fo?derato Mennonittv appellantur. Amat. 1T28.
The same in Dutch, with additions by Gerardua Maatschoen, Amst. 1743-1T45, in 3 vols. 12mo. By the
same: Histor. Mennonit. plenior Deductio. 1729.
S. BLATTPOT TEN CATB : Geschiedema der Doopftfjezindcn. Amsterdam, 1839-47. 5 vols. 8vo.
CEAMBU: The Mfe ofMenno Sim. Amst. 1837 (Dutch).
HABTMBJB : Leben Menno Simons. KSnigsberg, 1846.
ROOSEN : Menno Simons. Leipz. 1848.
EBBKAM : Geschichte der Protest. Sekten, pp. 480, 571.
GIESBLBB: Kirchengeschichte,Vol. III. Part II. pp. 90 sqq.
HENKK : Neuere Eirchengeschichte (herausgegeben von Dr. Gass). Halle, 1874, Vol. I. pp. 414 eqq.
The various branches of the Baptist family of Christians1 differ very
widely, and have little or no connection except that they agree in
rejecting infant baptism and in requiring a personal and voluntary
1 Mennomtes, Calvinistic Baptists, Armiman Baptists, Bunkers, River Brethren, Seventh-
Day Baptists, Six-Principle Baptists, Disciples or Campbellites. The last are very numerous
in the West ; they reject all creeds on principle.
§ 104. THE ANABAPTIST S AND MENNONITES. 841
profession of faith in Christ as a necessary condition of baptism.
Most of them agree also in opposition to sprinkling, or any other
mode of baptism but that by total immersion of the body in water.
The largest and most respectable denomination of Baptists took its
rise in the great religious commotion of England during the seven-
teenth century, and differed from the Puritans only in the doctrine
of baptism and in the steadfast advocacy of religious freedom. But
the Baptist movement began a century earlier on the Continent, and
this first stage must at least be briefly noticed.
THE ANABAPTISTS.
The early history of the Anabaptists exhibits a strange chaos of
peaceful reforms and violent revolutions — separatism, mysticism, mil-
lenarianism, spiritualism, contempt of history, ascetic rigor, fanati-
cism, communism, and some novel speculations concerning the body
of Christ as being directly created by God, and different from the
flesh and blood of other men. An impartial history, with a careful
critical sifting of these incongruous elements, is still a desideratum.
The modern Anabaptists1 figure prominently in the history of the
^Reformation, and meet us in Germany, Switzerland, Holland, and
England. They were Protestant radicals, who rejected infant baptism
as an invention of the Koman Antichrist, and aimed at a thorough
reconstruction of the Church. They spread mostly among the labor-
ing classes. Some of their preachers had no regular education, de-
spised human learning, and relied on direct inspiration; but others
were learned and eloquent men, as Grebel, Manz, Hetzer, Hub-
maier, Denk, Eoublin, and Eothmann. They were regarded as a
set of dangerous fanatics, who could not be tolerated under a Chris-
tian government. Their supposed or real connection with the Peas-
ant War, against the tyranny of landholders (1524), and with the
bloody and disastrous excesses at Miinster (1534), increased the oppo-
sition. Their doctrines were condemned in the Lutheran and Ke-
1 Or Rebaptizers, so called by their opponents because they rebaptized those baptized in
infancy, while they themselves denied the validity of infant baptism (some of them Catholic
baptism in general), and regarded voluntary baptism in years of discretion as the only true
baptism. The ancient Anabaptists or Rebaptizers, headed by Cyprian, denied the validity of
heretical baptism, and carried the principle of Catholic exclusivism to a logical extreme,
which the Roman Church has always rejected.
84:2 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
formed Confessions. The Reformers, even the mildest among them
(Melanchthon, Bucer, Bullinger, and Cranmer, as well as Lutlier,
Zwingli, and Calvin), felt that their extermination was necessary for
the salvation of the churchly Reformation and social order. And
yet they must have known worthy men among them ; Calvin him-
self married the widow of an Anabaptist pastor. Protestant and
Roman Catholic magistrates vied with each other in cruelty against
them, arid put them to death by drowning, hanging, and burning.
But it is the greatest injustice to make the Anabaptists as such re-
sponsible for the extravagances that led to the tragedy at Minister.
Their original and final tendencies were orderly and peaceful. They
disowned the wild fanaticism of Thomas Miinzer, John Bockelsohn,
and Knipperdolling. They were opposed to war and violence. They
were the crude harbingers and martyrs of some truths which have ger-
minated in other ages. They upheld the necessity of discipline and
congregational organization on the basis of personal faith in Christ,
instead of carnal descent and parochial boundaries. They attacked
the doctrine of the eternal damnation of unbaptized infants, and the
equally horrible doctrine of persecution, Balthasar Iliibmaier (Hub-
mor, or, as he was called by a Latin name, Pacimontanus), the ablest
and most learned among the Anabaptists, a pupil of Dr. Eck (Luther's
opponent), and for some time Professor of Catholic Theology at In-
golstadt, then a zealous and eloquent Protestant preacher, was per-
haps the first who taught the principle of universal religious liberty,
on the ground that Christ came not to kill' and to burn, but to save, and
condemned the employment of force in his kingdom. He held that
those only are heretics who willfully and wickedly oppose the holy
Scriptures ; and even these ought to be treated by no other than moral
means of persuasion and instruction.1 He was burned at the stake in
Vienna, March 10, 1528, and died with pious joy ; his wife, who encour-
aged him in his martyr spirit, was three days afterwards drowned in
the Danube.
THE MENNONITES.
MENNO SIMONS, a converted Roman Catholic priest, collected the
scattered remnant of the Anabaptists into a well-organized, peaceful,
1 Von Ketzern und ihren Verbrennern. A very rare book.
§ 104. THE ANABAFttSfS AJtfD MENNOKlTffiS.
and industrious coiinmuiity in Holland and on the borders of Germany
(1536). He gave them a strict system of discipline, and endeavored
to revive the idea of a pure apostolic congregation consisting of true be-
lievers unmixed with the world. He labored in constant peril of life
with untiring patience till his death, Jan. 13, 1561. * For eighteen years,'
he says, ' with my poor feeble wife and little children, has it behooved
me to bear great and various anxieties, sufferings, griefs, afflictions,
miseries, and persecutions, and in every place to find a bare existence,
in fear and danger of my life. While some preachers are reclining on
their soft beds and downy pillows, we oft are hidden in the caves of
the earth; while they are celebrating the nuptial or natal days of their
children with feasts and pipes, and rejoicing with the timbrel and the
harp, we are looking anxiously about, fearing the barking of the dogs,
lest persecutors should be suddenly at the door; while they are saluted
by all around as doctors,- masters, lords, we are compelled to hear our-
selves called Anabaptists, ale-house preachers, seducers, heretics, and
to be hailed in the devil's name. In a word, while they for their min-
istry are remunerated with annual stipends and prosperous days, our
wages are the fire, the sword, the death.' x
His followers were called Mennonites after his death.* They ac-
quired at last toleration, first in Holland from Prince "William of
Orange, 1572, and full liberty in 1626. They spread to the Palati-
nate, Switzerland, Eastern Prussia, and by emigration to South Kussia,
Pennsylvania, and other parts of North America. Quite recently sev-
eral htmdred families left their Eussian settlements for America be-
cause the privilege of exemption from military service was withdrawn.
They are a small, quiet, peaceful, industrious, and moral community,
like the Quakers. Their historian, Schyn, labors to show that they
have no connection whatever with the fanatical and revolutionary
Anabaptists of Munster.
The Mennonites were divided during the lifetime of Menno into
two parties on questions of discipline : 1, the { coarse ' Mennonites (die
Groben), or Waterlanders, who were more numerous, and flourished in
1 &chyn, Plenior Deduct, p. 133 (quoted in Introd. to Baptist Tracts on Liberty of Con-
science, p. Ixxxii.)-
fl Or Jboopsyezinden, i. e., Dippers. In Menno's writings they are called Gemeente Gods,
dhwliye, weerlosse Christenen, broeders, etc., but never Mennonites. See Gieseler,Vol. IIL
Ft, II.' p. 92.
844: THE CREEDS OB CHRISTENDOM.
the Waterland district of North Holland ; 2, the < refined ' Meiinonites
(die Feinen], who were chiefly Flemings, Frieslaudere, and Germans.
The latter adhered to the strict discipline of the founder.
The Mennonites acknowledge ' the Confession of Waterland/ which
was drawn up by two of their preachers, John Eis (tlaus de Rys) and
Lubbert Gerardi (Gerritsz), in the Dutch language.1
It consists of forty Articles, and teaches, besides the common doc-
trines of Protestant orthodoxy, the peculiar views of this community.
It rejects oaths (Art XXXVIII., on the ground of Matt. v. 37 and
James v. 10), war (XVIIL), and secular office-holding, because it is not
commanded by Christ and is inconsistent with true Christian character ;
but it enjoins obedience to the civil magistrate as a divine appointment
wherever it does not contradict the Word of God and interfere with
me dictates of conscience (XXXVIL). The Church consists of the
faithful and regenerate men scattered over the earth, under Christ the
Lord and King (XXIV.). Infant baptism is rejected as imscriptural
(XXXI.); but the Mennonites differ from other Baptists by sprink-
ling.2 On the Lord's Supper they agree with Zwingli. They admit
hereditary sin, but deny its guilt (Art. IV.). They hold to condition-
al election and universal redemption.3 But during the Arminian con-
troversy a portion sided with the strict Calvinists. They reject also
law-suits, revenge, every kind of violence, and worldly amusements.
In many respects they are the forerunners of the Quakers quite as
much as of the English and American Baptists.
1 Schyn gives a Latin translation, in his Historic Mennonitarum, pp. 1 72-220, under the
title, Prcecipuorum Christiancejidei Articukrum brmis Confessio adornata a Joanne Risio et
Lubberto Gerardi. He calls it also Mennonitarum Confes$io, or Formula Consensus inter Water-
landos. He says the confessions of the other branches of the Mennonites agree with it in all
fundamental articles. Winer (Compar. Darstellung, etc., pp. 24, 25), gives a list of Mennon-
ite Confessions and Catechisms.
One branch of them, the Collegiants or Rhynsburgers, held, however, to the necessity of
immersion. They have but recently become extinct, having had among them some men of
distinction.
3 Art. VII. derives sin exclusively from the will of man. and teaches that God predeHtiwited
and created all men for salvation (oinnes dwrevit et creavlt ad saluteni), that he provided the
remedy for all, that Christ died for all, and saves all who believe and persevere.
[NOTE. — McGlothlin gives as the earliest Anabaptist articles of the sixteenth century
two brief Swiss statements of 1527 which bear solely on practical questions. Two of
the teachings inculcate communism and that the Lord's Supper bo oolebrated 'as often
as the brethren come together.' The articles of the Moravian Anabaptists forbade tbo
Lord's Supper to persons having property. — ED.]
§ 105. THE REGULAR OR CALVINISTIC BAPTISTS. 845
§ 105. THE REGULAR OR OALVINISTIO BAPTISTS.
Literature,
Confessions of Faith and other Public Documents illustrative of the History of the Baptist Churches of
England in the tiewnteewUi Century. Edited for the Hanserd Knollys Society by KDWAKD BBAN UNDERBILL.
London (Iladdon Brothers & Co.), 1854. Contains reprints of seven Baptist Confessions from 1611 to
1688, the Baptist Catechism of Collins, and several letters and other documents from the early history of
Baptists in England.
Tiios. OBOBIIY : The History of the English Baptists, from the Reformation to the Beginning of the Reign
of King George /. London, 1740. 4 vols. Contains important documents, but also many inaccuracies.
JOBBFJI I VIM MY : History of the English Baptists, including an Investigation of tJie History of Baptism in
England. London, 1811-23. In 3 vote. 8vo.
ISAAO BACKUS (d. 1800) : History of New England, with especial Reference to the Baptists. In 3 vols. A
new edition, by David Woston, was published by the Backus Historical Society, Newton Centre, Mass. 1871.
DAVID BKNKWOT (Pantor of the Baptist Church in Pawtucket, R. I.) : A General History of the Baptist
DenamiiHaitfwi in America and other Parts of the World. Boston, 1813, in 2 vols. ; new edition, New York,
1848, in 1 vol. (970 pp.). A chaos of facts.
FRANCIS WAYIAND : Notes on the Principles and Practices of the Baptist Churches. New York (Sheldon,
Blakcmau, & Co.), 1857.
SBWALL S. CUTTING : Historical Vindications; . . . with Appendices containing Historical Notes and Con-
fessions of Waith. Boston (Gould & Lincoln), 1859.
J. M. CRAMP: Baptist History, from the Foundation of the Christian Church to the Close of the Eighteenth
Century. Philadelphia (American Baptist Publication Society), IfaCS. For popular use.
J. JACKSON GOAPBY : Bye-Paths in Baptist History; A Collection of Interesting, Instructive, and Curious
Information, not generally known, concerning the Baptist Denomination. London, 1874 (pp. 375). Chap.
VI. treats of Baptist Confessions of Faith.
The Baptist* and the National Centennial : A Record of Christian Work, 1776-18TC. Edited by LBMTTBL
Moss, D.D. Philadelphia (Baptist Publication Society), 1876 Contains a chapter on * Doctrinal History
and Position,' by Dr. Pepper, pp. 51 sqq.
WILLIAM R. WILLIAMS J Lectures on Baptist History. Philadelphia, 1877.
The English and American Baptists have inherited some of the
principles without the eccentricities and excesses of the Continental
Anabaptists and Mennonites.1 They are radical but not revolutionary
in politics and religion, and as sober, orderly, peaceful, zealous, and
devoted as any other class of Christians. They rose simultaneously in
England and America during the Puritan conflict, and have become,
next to the Methodists, the strongest denomination in the United States.
The great body of Baptists are called KEGULAR or PARTICULAR or
CALVINISTIO BAPTISTS, in distinction from the smaller body of Gen-
eral or Arminian or Free- Will Baptists. They are Calvinists in doc-
trine and Independents in Church polity, but differ from both in their
views on the subjects and mode of baptism. They teach that believers
only ought to be baptized, that is, dipped or immersed, on a voluntary
confession of their faith. They reject infant baptism as an unscript-
1 Their older scholars claim an origin earlier than the Continental or the English Ref-
ormation, going back to the Waldenses and Albigenses, and to the Lollard movement follow-
ing, in Britain, the labors of Wycliff. The tradition of the Holland Mennonites gave them
a Waldensian ancestry. But these points are disputed, and no historical connection can be
traced.
846 THE CREEDS OF CHBISTENDOM.
ural innovation and profanation of the sacrament, since an infant can
not hear the gospel, nor repent and make a profession of faith. They
believe, however, in the salvation of all children dying before the age
of responsibility. Baptism in their system has no regenerative and
saving efficacy: it is simply an outward sign of grace already be-
stowed, a public profession of faith in Christ to the world, and an
entrance into the privileges and duties of church membership.1 They
also opposed from the start national church establishments, and the
union of Church and State, which one of their greatest writers (Robert
Hall) calls c little more than a compact, between the priest and the
magistrate to betray the liberties of mankind, both civil and relig-
ious.5 They advocate voluntaryism, and make the doctrine of re-
ligious freedom, as an inherent and universal right of man, a part of
their creed.
THE BAPTISTS IN ENGLAND.
In England the Baptists were for a long time treated with extreme
severity on account of their supposed connection with the fanatical
fraction of the German and Dutch Anabaptists. A number of them
who had fled from Holland were condemned to death or exiled (1535
and 1539). Latimer speaks, in a sermon before Edward VI., of Ana-
baptists who were burned to death under Henry VIII., in divers
towns, and met their fate ' cheerfully and without any fear/
Under Edward VI. they became numerous in the south of England,
especially in Kent and Essex. Two were burned — a Dutchman, named
George van Pare, and an English woman, Joan Boucher, usually called
Joan of Kent. These were the only executions for heresy during his
reign. The young king reluctantly and with tears yielded to Cranmer,
who urged on him from the Mosaic law the duty of punishing blas-
phemy and fundamental heresy. Joan of Kent, besides rejecting in-
fant baptism, was charged with holding the doctrine of some German
and Dutch Anabaptists, that Christ's sinless humanity was not taken
* from the substance of the Virgin Mary,' who was a sinner, but was
immediately created by God. She resisted every effort of Cranmer to
change her views, and preferred martyrdom (May 2, 1550). Several of
the Fort}' -two Edwardine Articles were directed against the Anabaptists.
1 The Campbellites, or Disciples, differ from the other Baptists by identifying baptismal
immersion with regeneration, or teaching a concurrence of both acts.
§ 105. THE REGULAR OR CALVINISTIC BAPTISTS. 847
Under Elizabeth a congregation of Dutch Anabaptists was discov-
ered in London; twenty-seven members were imprisoned, some re-
canted, some were banished from the kingdom. The two most ob-
stinate, John Wielmaker and Henry Terwoort, were committed to the
flames in Smithfield, July 22, 1575, notwithstanding the petition of
John Foxe, the martyrologist, who begged the queen to spare them,
not indeed from prison or exile (which he deemed a just punishment
for heresy), but from being 'roasted ali^e in fire and flame,3 which
was * a hard thing, and more agreeable to the practice of Romanists
than to the custom of Evangelicals.'1 These Dutch Anabaptists were
charged with 'most damnable and detestable heresies,5 such as that
Christ took not flesh from the substance of Mary ; that infants ought
not to be baptized ; that it is not lawful for a Christian man to be a
magistrate or bear the sword or take an oath. These are evidently
doctrines of the Mennonites, afterwards adopted by the Quakers, and
now generally tolerated without any injury to society.
During the reigns of James and Charles the Baptists made common
cause with the Puritans, especially the Independents, against the pre-
latical Church, but withdrew more completely from the national wor-
ship, and secretly assembled in woods, stables, and barns for religious
worship. They began to organize separate congregations (1633), but
were punished whenever discovered. Many fled to Holland, and some
to America. Their earliest publications were pleas for liberty of con-
science.2
With the Long Parliament they acquired a little freedom, though
their views were opposed by Presbyterians and Independents, as well
as by Episcopalians. They increased rapidly during the civil wars.
In 1644 they numbered seven congregations in London, and forty-
seven in the country. Cromwell left them unmolested. He had
many of them in his army, and some even held positions in his ex-
perimental Broad Church.3 Milton is claimed by them, on the ground
1 See Foxe's letter to Queen Elizabeth, in Latin, in Append. III. to Neat's History (Vol. II.
p. 430).
a See the Trncts on Liberty of Consdence, republished for the Hanserd Knollys Society by
E.B. Underbill (London, 184G), which contains seven Baptist works on this subject from
1 6 1 4 to 1 6<> I . On Roger Williams, see below.
3 Samuel Richardson, a Baptist, who knew him personally, speaks very highly of Cromwell,
as a man who ' aimeth at the general good of the nation and just liberty of every man, who is
84:8 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
of a passage unfavorable to infant baptism, but with no more justice
than Arians, Unitarians, and Quakers may claim Him.1
After the Restoration they were again persecuted by fines, impris-
onment, and torture. They suffered more severely than any other
Non- conformists, except the Quakers. Among their most distin-
guished confessors, who spent much time in prison, were Vavasor
Powell (d. 1670), Hanserd Knollys (d. 1690),2 Benjamin Keach, and
John Bunyan (d. 1688).
The Act of Toleration (1689) brought relief to the Baptists, and
enabled them to build chapels and spread throughout the country.
Since then they have become one of the leading branches of Dis-
faithfnl to the saints, who hath owned the poor despised people of God, and advanced many
to a better way and means of living.' See Tracts on Liberty of Conscience, p. 240.
1 Milton, it seems, withdrew at last from all Church organizations, regarding them with
equal respect and indifference, except the Romanists, whom he excludes from toleration as
idolaters and enemies of toleration. With his illustrious friend, the younger Sir Henry
Vane, whom, as understanding the true relations of Church and State, he praises in one of
his most beautiful sonnets, he joined the ' Seekers,' a body looking for a more perfect Church
yet to come. Roger Williams, the friend of both poet and statesman, joined them in his last
years in occupying the same ground. In 1073, the year before his death, Milton published a
treatise on ' True Religion, Heresy, Schism, Toleration, and the Best Means against the
Growth of Popery,' in which he defines heresy to be 'a religion taken up and believed from
the traditions of men and additions to the Word of God.' In this sense Popery is the only or
the greatest heresy ; its very name, Roman Catholic, a contradiction ; one of the Pope's bulls
as universal particular, or catholic schismatic ; while Protestants are free from heresy,
which is in the will and choice professedly against the Scriptures. He represents four classes
of Protestants — Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, and Socinians — as agreed in the articles
essential to salvation, and says : * The Lutheran holds consubstantiation ; an error, indoed,
but not mortal. The Calvinist is taxed with predestination, and to make God the author of
sin, not with any dishonorable thought of God, but it may be overzealously asserting his
absolute power, not without plea of Scripture. The Anabaptist is accused of denying infants
their right to baptism ; again, they say they deny nothing but what Scripture denies them.
The Arian and Socinian are charged to dispute against the Trinity ; they affirm to believe
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost according to Scripture and the Apostolic Creed. As for
terms of trinity, trini-unity, co-essentiality, tri-personality, and the like, they reject them as
scholastic notions, not to be found in Scripture, which, by a general Protestant maxim, is
plain and perspicuous abundantly to explain its own meaning in the properest words belong-
ing to so high a matter and so necessary to be known ; a mystery indeed in their sophistic
subtleties, but in Scripture a plain doctrine. Their other opinions are of less moment. They
dispute the satisfaction of Christ, or rather the word satisfaction, as not Scriptural, but they
acknowledge him both God and their Saviour. The Arminian, lastly, is condemned for setting
up free-will against free-grace; but that imputation he disclaims in all his writings, and
grounds himself largely upon Scripture only.'
a Knollys fled to Massachusetts (1638), and preached for some time in the extreme north-
ern part of the colony, but, being exposed to danger as a Baptist and Separatist, he returned
to England in 1641. The society for the republication of scarce old Baptist tracts is callefl
.after him.
§ 105. THE REGULAR OH CALVINISTIC BAPTISTS. 849
senters in England. They have produced some of the most eminent
preachers and authors in the English language, such as John Bunyan,
Andrew Fuller, Robert Hall, John Foster, Joseph Angus, CX H. Spur*
geon.
ROGEK WILLIAMS.
Literature.
See Lives of Roger Williams by KNOWLKS (1834), GAMMBLL (1846, 1846, 1854), and ELTON (1852) ; also
AUNOLD'B History of Rhode Island (1860), Vol. I. ; PALFREY'S History of Seio England, Vols. I. and II. ; BAK-
CBOFT'S History of the U. &, Vol. I. ; MASBON, Life ofMilton,Vol. II. pp. 560 sqq., 573 sq. ; ALLIBONB, Diet, of
It nt. and Amer. Authors, Vol. III. p. 2T47; DKXTTGH, As to Royer Williams and his ' Banishment* from th*
Massachwetts Plantation (Boston, 1876) ; J. L. DIMAN, Monwnwnt to XL W. in Providence (Providence, 1877).
The works of Williams were republished by the Narragansett Club (First Scries, Vol. I., Providence,
1866), aud by Underbill for the Hanserd Knollys Society (London, 1848).
In America the Baptists trace their origin chiefly but not exclu-
sively to Eoger Williams (b. probably in Wales, 1599,2 d. in Provi-
dence, R I., 1683), the founder of Ehode Island. Originally a cler-
gyman in the Church of England, he became a rigid separatist, a
radical come-outer of all Church establishments, an ' arch-individual-
ist/ and an advocate of ' soul-liberty ' in the widest acceptation of the
term. He was a pious, zealous, unselfish, kind-hearted, but eccentric,
c conscientiously contentious,' and impracticable genius, a real tronbler
in Israel, who could not get along with any body but himself ; and
this accounts for his troubles, which, however, were overruled for
good. Cotton Mather compared him to a windmill, which, by its
rapid motion in consequence of a violent storm, became so intensely
heated that it took fire and endangered the whole town.
Pursued out of his land by Bishop Laud, as he says, he emigrated
with a heavy heart, in company with his wife Mary, to the colony of
Massachusetts, and arrived after a tedious and tempestuous voyage in
February, 1631.
lie first exercised his ministerial gifts as an assistant to the pastor
of Plymouth Colony, and acquired a knowledge of the Indian language.
In 1633 he removed to Salem as assistant of Mr. Skelton, and in 1635
he was ordained pastor of Salem Church. But he was even then
1 The accounts of the year of his birth vary from 1598 to 1606. He was a prote'ge' of the
celebrated judge, Sir Edward Coke. Historians differ as to whether he was jRodericus
Williams, from Wales, who entered Jesus College, Oxford, in 1G24, or Rogerus Williams,
whose name appears in the subscription-book of Pembroke College, Cambridge, in 1026.
Elton and Masson take the former, Arnold and Dexter the latter view, which better agrees
with his Christian name.
850 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
in open opposition to the prevailing views and customs of the colony,
and refused to take the oath of fidelity. Besides this, he was charged
with advocating certain opinions supposed to be dangerous, viz., that
the magistrate ought not to punish offenses against the first table;
that an oath ought not to be tendered to an unregenerate man ; that a
regenerate man ought not to pray with the unregenerate, though it be
his wife or child ; that a man ought not to give thanks after the sacra-
ment nor after meat. He was unwilling to retract, and advised his
church to withdraw from communion with the other churches of the
colony, ' as full of anti-Christian pollution.3 For these reasons the
court banished Williams (Oct., 1635). The question of toleration was
implied in the first charge; he denied the jurisdiction of the civil
magistrate over matters of conscience and religion, and defended
this principle afterwards in a book, < The Bloudy Tenent of Persecu-
tion for Cause of Conscience,' against John Cotton (1644).1 His views
on baptism were developed afterwards; but they would only have
aggravated his case, and in fact his rebaptism brought upon him the
sentence of excommunication from the church of Salem, of which he
was still nominally a member.2
1 This book was anonymously published in London, when Williams was there occupied in
obtaining a charter for Rhode Island, and is exceedingly rare, only six copies being known
to exist ; but it has been reprinted from the copy in the Bodleian Library by Edward Bean
Underbill, together with the Answer to Cotton's Letter and a Memoir of Williams (London,
1848, pp. 43S) and xxxvi,). It is written in a kindly and moderate spirit, free from the con-
troversial bitterness of the age, in the form of a conference between Truth and Peace. Will-
iams begins with this sentence : ' The blood of so many hundred thousand souls of Protest-
ants and Papists, spilt in the wars of present and former ages, for their respective consciences,
is not required nor accepted by Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace.7 lie maintains that civil
government has nothing whatever to do with spiritual matters, over which God alone rules,
and that religious liberty should be extended not only to all Christian denominations and
sects, but even to ' the most Paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or anti-Christian consciences and
worships' (p. 2). John Cotton, his chief opponent, wrote in reply *The Bloudy Tenent
washed, and made white in the Bloud of the Lambe : being discussed and discharged of
blood -guiltiness by just Defense* (London, 164-7). Williams defended his position in
* The Bloody Tenent yet more Bloody by Mr. Cotton's endeavour to wash it white in the
Blood of the Lambe' (London, 1 652, 4to, pp. 373). John Cotton (1 585-1652), who emigrated
to America two years after Williams (1633), was one of the patriarchs of New England, and,
together with Hooker and Stone, constituted the ' glorious triumvirate' that supplied the Puri-
tans in the wilderness with their three great necessities — l Cotton for their clothing, Hooker
for their fishing, and Stone for their building.' — Cotton Mather's Magnalia, Vol. III. p. 20,
a Dr. Dexter's monograph is a learned and elaborate partisan defense of the, action of the
young Colony, which, he says, ' was reluctantly compelled to choose between the expulsion of
§ 105. THE REGULAR OR CALVINISTIC BAPTISTS. 851
The banishment was the best tiling that could have happened to Will-
iams : it led to the development of his heroic qualities, and gave him a
prominent position in American history. He left Salem with a few
friends, and made his way in dreary winter through ' a howling wilder-
ness5 to the wigwams of his Indian friends, and was sorely tossed in frost
and snow among barbarians for fourteen weeks, < not knowing what
bread or bed did mean.1 In June, 1636, he founded with five families
who adhered to him the town of Providence. He scrupulously bought
the land from the Indians, and acted as pastor of this democratic set-
tlement In 1638 he became a Baptist ; he was immersed by Ezekiel
Hollyman, and in turn immersed Hollyman and ten others. This was
the first Baptist church on the American Continent. But a few months
afterwards he renounced his rebaptism on the ground that Hollyman
was unbaptized, and therefore unauthorized to administer the rite to
him. He remained for the rest of his life a ' Seeker,' cut loose from,
all existing Church organizations and usages, longing for a true Church
of God, but unable to find one on the face of the whole earth. He
conceived ' that the apostasy of Antichrist hath so far corrupted all
that there can be no recovery out of that apostasy till Christ send
forth new apostles to plant churches anew.'
In 1643 he went to England, and obtained through, the Commissioners
of Plantation a charter which allowed the planters to rule themselves
according to the laws of England, c so far as the nature of the case
would admit' In 1663 he accepted for the colony another and more
successful charter, a patent from the English crown similar to that
of Massachusetts, to which he had formerly objected. He kept up
friendly relations with the Indians, and twice saved the Massachusetts
colony from danger, thus returning good for evil. His fame rests
on his advocacy of the sacredness of conscience. Bancroft goes too
far when in his eloquent eulogy he calls him cthe first person in
modern Christendom who asserted in its plenitude the doctrine of the
liberty of conscience, the equality of opinions before the law.' The
Anabaptists and Meimonites had done the same a hundred years be-
fore. But Williams planted the first civil government on the prin-
ciple of universal c soul-liberty,' and was followed by William Penn
takes the ground that Williams was banished, not on religious, but on political grounds. But
religion and politics were inseparably interwoven in the New England theocracy.
852 THE CREEDS OJP CHBISTENDOM:
in his Quaker colony in Pennsylvania. Koger Williams has been
called < that noble confessor of religious liberty, that extraordinary
man and most enlightened legislator, who, after suffering persecution
from his brethren, persevered, amidst incredible hardships and diffi-
culties, in seeking a place of refuge for the sacred ark of conscience.5 1
In the other colonies the Baptists were more or less persecuted till the
time of the Bevolution, but after that they spread with great rapidity.
The American Baptists differ from their English brethren by a strict-
er discipline and closer communion practice. They are very zealous
in missions, education, and other departments of Christian activity.
In theology they cultivate especially biblical studies with great success.
BAPTIST CONFESSIONS.
The Baptists, like the Oongregationalists, lower the authority of gen-
eral creeds to mere declarations of faith prevailing at the time in the
denomination, to which no one is bound to give assent beyond the
measure of his conviction ; and they multiply the number and elevate
the authority of local or congregational creeds and covenants, by which
the members of particular congregations voluntarily bind themselves
to a certain scheme of doctrine and duty. Notwithstanding the entire
absence of centralization in their government, and the unrestrained
freedom of private judgment, the Calvinistic Baptists have maintained
as great a degree of essential harmony of faith as they themselves
deem desirable.
< The Baptist creeds,' says Dr. Joseph Angus, in behalf of English
Baptists,2 * were prepared in the first instance for apologetic and de-
fensive purposes. They merely describe the doctrines held by the
bodies from which they emanated. They were never imposed on
ministers and members of the churches of either section of the Bap-
tists. Even when adopted, as they sometimes were, by any church, as
an expression of its sentiments, all sister churches were left free, and
in the particular church a considerable latitude of judgment was al-
lowed in interpreting them. They have never been accepted as tests,
and merely, represent in a general wayjbe sentiment of the body. In
' Mrs. P. S. Elton, in The Piedmontese &voy; or, Tke M^Jfanne^nd 'fal&o^ftie
Commonwealth: A Tale (London, 1852), puts this eulogy into the mouth of John Milton-
hence it is sometimes falsely quoted as Milton's (AUibone, Vol. III. p. 27471 '
3 In a letter to the author*
§ 105. THE EEGULAB OR CALVINISTIC BAPTISTS. 853
trust deeds or in the rules of associations they never appear. Prop-
erty in trust is held for the use of evangelical Christians maintaining
the doctrines commonly held by Particular (or General) Baptists; some-
times these doctrines are enumerated in the briefest possible way — the
trinity, the atonement, etc. — and sometimes they are not enumerated
at all. Of course, in the event of an appeal to law, the creeds and
confessions would be evidence of the faith of the body. Substantially
the two sections of the Baptist body believe as of old. But their con-
fessions are not authoritative except as evidence and in matters of
property ; while in the interpretation of them it is a principle to allow
as much freedom as is consistent with a substantial agreement in the
same general truth.'
c Confessions of faith,' says Dr. Osgood, with special reference to the
Baptists in the United States,1 c have never been held as tests of ortho-
doxy, as of any authoritative or binding force ; they merely reflect the
existing harmony of views and the scriptural interpretations of the
churches assenting to them. "We believe," says Wayland, "in the full-
est sense, in the independence of every individual church of Christ We
hold that each several church is a Christian society, on which is con-
ferred by Christ the entire power of self-government. No church has
any power over any other church. No minister has any authority in
any church except that which has called him to be its pastor. Every
church, therefore, when it expresses its own belief, expresses the belief
of no other than its own members. If several churches understand the
Scriptures in the same way, and all unite in the same confession, then
this expresses the opinions and belief of those who profess it. It, how-
ever, expresses their belief because all of them, from the study of the
Scriptures, understand them in the same manner, and not because any
tribunal has imposed such interpretations upon them. We can not
acknowledge the authority of any such tribunal. We have no right
to delegate such an authority to any man or to any body of men. It
is our essential belief that the Scriptures are a revelation from God,
given ... to every individual man. They were given to every individ-
ual that he might understand them for himself, and the word that is
given him will judge him at the great day. It is hence evident that
1 Letter to the author.
854: THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
we can have no standards which claim to be of any authority ovei
us."'1
I. THE CONFESSION or THE SEVEN CHURCHES IN LONDON. Dr. Daniel
Featley, a prominent Episcopalian of the Puritan party and member of
the Westminster Assembly (from which, however, he was expelled for
informing the king of its proceedings), had a public disputation with
the Baptists in 1644, and published it, with a dedication to the Parlia-
ment, under the title, * The Dippers dipt; or, the Anabaptists Duck'd
and Plung'd over Head and Ears at a Disputation in South wark.'2
This gave rise to a Confession of Faith, on the part of seven Lon •
don churches, with an Epistle Dedicatory to the two houses of Parlia-
ment. It appeared in 1644 (three years before the Westminster Con-
fession), and again with some additions and changes in 1646, under
the title, ' A Confession of Faith of Seven Congregations or Churches
of Christ in London, which are commonly (but unjustly) called Ana-
baptists.'3 This document consists of fifty-two (51) Articles, and shows
that in all important doctrines and principles, except on the sacra-
ments and Church government, the Baptists agreed with the orthodox
Reformed Churches. The concluding paragraph admits the fallibil-
ity of human confessions, and the readiness of Baptists to receive
further light, but also their determination 'to die a thousand deaths
rather than do any thing against the least tittle of the truth of God,
or against the light of our own consciences.'
1 F. Wayland, Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches, pp. 13, 14.
8 London, 3d ed. 164:5 ; 7th ed. 1660. The spirit of this book may be judged from the
title and the following passage of the Episth Dedicatory: 'Of all heretics and schismatics,
the Anabaptists ought to be most carefully looked into, and severely punished, if not utterly
exterminated and banished out of the Church and Kingdom. . . . They preach and print
and practice their heretical impieties openly ; they hold their conventicles weekly in our
chief cities and suburbs thereof, and there prophesy by turns ; . . . they flock in great mul-
titudes to their Jordans, and both sexes enter into the river, and are dipt after their man-
ner with a kind of spell, containing the heads of their erroneous tenets. . . . And as they
defile our rivers with their impure washings, and our pulpits with their false prophecies
and fanatical enthusiasms, so the presses sweat and groan under the load of their blasphe-
mies.1 *
8 Printed in Underbill's Collection, pp. 11-48. The title-pages, which are all given by
Underbill, slightly differ in the three editions of 1644, '46, and V>1. I have before me a
copy of the fourth ed., London, 1652, which has been for more than two hundred years in
the family of the Rev. Dr. Holme, a Baptist clergyman of New York. It has the same title
as the third ed., but only fifty-one Articles ; Art. XXXVIII., on the support of the ministry
by the congregation, being omitted.
§ 105. THE REGULAR OR CALVINISTIC BAPTISTS. 855
II. THE CONFESSION OP SOMERSET, 1656. It was signed by the dele-
gates of sixteen churches of Somerset and the adjoining counties. It
consists of forty-six Articles.7
III. THE CONFESSION OF 1688. This is by far the most important
and authoritative. It has superseded the two earlier confessions, and
is to this day held in the highest esteem. It appeared first in 1677, at
London, under the title, c A Confession of Faith put forth by the Elders
and Brethren of many congregations of Christians baptized upon pro-
fession of their faith.' It was reprinted in 1688, 1689, and approved
and recommended by the ministers and messengers of above a hun-
dred congregations met in London, July 3-11, 1689.2 It has been
often reprinted.3 ' It is still generally received by all those congrega-
tions that hold the doctrine of personal election and the certainty of
the saints' final perseverance.'4 In America it was adopted by the
Baptist Association which met in Philadelphia, Sept. 25, 1742, and
hence is known also by the name of the PHILADELPHIA CONFESSION.
This Confession consists of thirty-two chapters, beginning with the
holy Scriptures and ending with the last judgment. It is simply
rtie Baptist recension of the Westminster Confession, as the Savoy
Declaration is the Congregational recension of the same Westminster
Confession. It follows the Westminster Confession in sentiment and
language, with very few verbal alterations, except in the doctrine of
the Church and the Sacraments. The Preface sets forth that the
Confession of Westminster is retained in substance for the purpose
of showing the agreement of the Baptists with the Presbyterians and
Oongregationalists 'in all the fundamental Articles of the Christian
religion,' and also to convince all that they have 'no itch to clog
1 Underbill, pp. 74-106.
a The following certificate was prefixed : ' We, the ministers and messengers of, and con-
cerned for, upwards of one hundred congregations in England and Wales, denying Arminian-
ism, being met together in London, from the third day of the seventh month to the eleventh
of the same, 1 689, . . . have thought meet for the satisfaction of all other Christians that differ
from us in the point of baptism, to recommend to their perusal the confession of our faith, . . .
which confession we own, as containing the doctrine of our faith and practice; and do desire
that the members of our churches respectively do furnish themselves therewith.' Signed by
thirty- seven persons in the name of the whole assembly.
3 Editions of 1G99, 1710, 1720, etc. An American ed. was issued by Benj. Franklin, and
one at Pittsburgh (8. Williams), 1831. It is also reprinted by Crosby, Vol. III. Append. II.
pp. 50-111 ; Underbill, pp. 169-246,
4 Dr. Angus.
VOL. I.— I T T
856 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
religion with new words, but do readily acquiesce in that form of
sound words which has been, in consent with the holy Scriptures,
used by others before us ; hereby declaring before God, angels, and
men our hearty agreement with them in that wholesome Protestant
doctrine which with so clear evidence of Scripture they have as-
serted.' The Appendix is a defense of the Baptist theory against
Psedobaptists.
The Confession differs from that of the Westminster in the chapters on
the Church and on the sacraments. It omits the chapters ' Of Church
Censuses' (XXX.) and < Of Synods and Councils.3 The chapter c Of the
Church' (XXV.) is adapted to the independent polity ; and the chapter
6 Of Baptism ' is altered to suit the Baptist theory, limiting the right
of baptism to those * who do actually profess repentance towards God,
faith in and obedience to oar Lord Jesus,' and declaring ' immersion
or dipping of the person in water3 to be 'necessary to the due admin-
istration of this ordinance ' (XXIX.). A chapter, * Of the Gospel and
the Extent of Grace thereof,' is inserted from the Savoy Declaration as
Ch. XX. (which causes the change of the numbering of the chapters
which follow).1
IY. In 1693 a Catechism based on this Confession was drawn up
by William Collins, at the request of the General Assembly which met
at London in June of that year. It is taken chiefly from the West-
minster Shorter Catechism, and follows closely its order and method.
It is also called ' Keach's Catechism.' Benjamin Zeach was with Col-
lins among the signers of the Confession of 1688, and seems to have
had much to do with the work. It is the only Catechism which has
found general acceptance among Baptists in England and America.2
During the seventeenth century there were also some private confes-
* See Vol. III. pp. 738 sqq.
2 Underbill says, p. xv. : * It is the only Catechism of value among Baptists.' He gives it
from the 16th Engl. ed., pp. 247-270, but says nothing of Keach's co-authorship, and ascribes
to him another Catechism (' The Child's Instructor: a New and Easy Primer,' 24mo, 1(564),
for which he was imprisoned under Charles II. The American Baptist Publication Society
publishes it under the title, * The Baptist Catechism commonly called Keach's Catechism ;
or, A Brief Instruction in the Principles of the Christian Religion, agreeably to the Con-
fession of Faith put forth by upwards of a hundred congregations in Great Britain, July 3,
1089, and adopted by the Philadelphia Baptist Association, Sept. 22, 1742.' Here the name
of Collins is omitted. But the Catechism is literally the same as the one in Underbill's
Collection,
§ 106. AEMINIAN OE FREE-WILL BAPTISTS. 857
sions written by John Bunyan, Vavasor Powell, Ben jamin Keach, and
Elias Keach.
Y. THE NEW HAMPSHIRE CONFESSION was prepared about 1833 or
1834, by the Kev. J. Newton Brown, of New Hampshire (d. 1868), the
editor of a c Universal Cyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge.3 It is
shorter and simpler than the Confession of 1688, and presents the
Calvinistic system in a milder form. It has been accepted by the
Baptists of New Hampshire and other Northern and Western States^
and is now the most popular creed among American Baptists.1
§ 106. ABMINIAN OR FREE-WILL BAPTISTS.
IN ENGLAND.
[See Literature on p. 845.]
The GENERAL or ARMINIAN BAPTISTS differ from the Particular or
Calvinistic Baptists in rejecting unconditional election and the per-
severance of saints, and in maintaining the freedom of will and the
possibility of falling from grace. So far they followed the Men-
nonites. They assign greater power to a general assembly of asso-
ciated churches, and hold three orders — bishops or messengers, pas-
tors or elders, and deacons; while the Particular Baptists, like the
Congregationalists, recognize only two — bishops or pastors and dea-
cons (elders being a title applicable to the first or to both).
I. The first Confession of Arminian Baptists was published by Eng-
lish refugees in Holland, under the title/ A Declaration of Faith of
English People remaining at Amsterdam in Holland,7 Amsterdam,
1611.2 It was drawn up by Smyth and Helwisse. It consists of
twenty-seven (26) Articles. The first Article confesses the doctrine
of the Trinity in the spurious words of 1 John v. 7. Election is
conditioned by foreknown faith, reprobation by foreknown unbelief,
and the perseverance of saints is denied.3 The Church of Christ is
1 It is printed in Vol. III. pp. 742 sqq.
a It is reprinted in Crosby's History •, Vol. II. Appendix I. pp. 1-9, and in Underbill's Col-
lection, pp. 1-10. A manuscript copy exists in the archives of the Mennonite church at
Amsterdam, to which the original subscriptions of forty-two names are appended, preceded by
the modest remark, * We subscribe to the truth of these Articles, desiring further instruction/
3 Art. V. : 4God before the foundation of the world hath predestinated that all that believe
In him shall be saved, and all that believe not shall be damned ; all which lie knew before.
And this is the election and reprobation spoken of in the Scriptures, . . . and not that God
858 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
defined (Art. 'JL) to be ' a company of faithful people separated from
the world by the Word and Spirit of God, being knit unto the Lord,
and one unto another, by baptism, upon their own confession of the
faith.' Baptism is confined to adults, but nothing is said of immersion.
The duty of obedience to the magistrate is very earnestly enjoined
(Art. XXIY.).
II. The 'London Confession5 was approved by more than twenty
thousand Baptists, and was presented to Charles II., July 26, 1660.
It contains twenty-five Articles.1
III. The < Orthodox Creed3 was published in 1678, by the General
Baptists of Oxfordshire and the parts adjacent. It makes a near ap-
proach to Calvimsin, with a view to unite the Protestants in the funda-
mental articles against the errors of Kome.2
IN AMERICA.
Literature.
L D. STEWART : The History of the Free-will Baptists for Haifa Centwy. Dover, 1862 eq<j. (Vol. I. from
1780 to 1830). Comp. also the Lives of Randall, Stinchfield, Colby, Thornton, Marks, Bowles, Phinney,
and Elias Smith ; the Records of Yearly Meetings and Quarterly Meetings, and sundry articles In the re-
ligions periodicals and other publications of the Free-will Baptists issued from their Printing Bstablisa-
meut at Dover, New Hampshire.
The American General Baptists are called FREE-WILL Baptists or
FREE Baptists. They trace their origin to Benjamin Eandall (1749-
1808), who was converted by one of the last sermons of Whitefield at
Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Sept. 28, 1770. He was at first a Cori-
gregationalist, but in 1776 he united himself with a regular Baptist
church in South Berwick, Maine, and entered the ministry. In 1780
he organized, in New Durham, New Hampshire, a Baptist chnrch,
which became the nucleus of a new denomination, holding the doc-
trines of conditional election, free will, and open communion. In
government it is congregational.
In 1827 the Free-will Baptists organized a General Conference in
New England, and opened correspondence with the Arminian Bap-
tists in England and North Carolina.
hath predestinated men to be wicked, and so be damned, but that men being wicked shall be
damned. ' Art. VII. : « Men may fall away from the grace of God, and from the truths which
they have received and acknowledged.'
1 Underbill, pp. 107-120.
3 Ibid. pp. 121-168.
§ 107. THE SOCIETY OF FEIENDS, OR QUAKERS. 859
Their Confession of Faith, together with a directory of discipline,
was prepared by order of the General Conference of 1832, approved
ISSJ:, revised by a committee in 1848, 1865, and 1868. It is the clear-
est and ablest exposition of the principles of the Free-will Baptists.1
§ 107. THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, OR QUAKERS.
Literature.
I. SOURCES.
GKO. Fox (founder of the Society of Friends, d. 1600) : Works (containing his Journal, Letters, and
Exhortations), London, 1694-1706, In 3 vols. fol.; also Philadelphia, in 8 vols. Svo.
ItoiiKBT BAUOLAY (the standard divine of the Quakers, d. 1690) : Works, edited by William Penn, Lon-
don, 1692, under the title, * Truth Triumphant through the Spiritual Warfare, Christian Labors and
Writings of that Able and, faithful Servant of Jesus Christ, Robert Barclay,' etc. The principal of these
works are : Apologia Tlieologice vere Christiance, first in Latin, Amst. 1675 ; then in English, by the author
himself; also in German, Dutch, French, and Spanish. The full title of the English edition is, 'An
Apology for the True Christian Divinity > being an Explanation and Vindication of tfie Principles and Doc-
trines of the People called Quakers.' (I have a very elegant copy of the eighth edition, Birmingham, 1765.)
A Catechism and Confession of JtfaMh, approved of and agreed unto by the General Assembly of the Patrir
archs, J+apheto, and Apostles, Christ himself Chief Speaker in and among them. (The answers wholly
biblical.) 1078. The same, in Latin (Catechesis et Fidei Confessio, etc.). Rotterdam, 1676. Treatise on
Christian Dwrfpline, etc.
WU,LIAM PIWN (d. 1718) : A Summary of the History, Doctrine, and Discipline of Friends (London, 1692) ;
Brief Account of the liise and Progress of the People called Friends (London, 1694) ; * Quakerism a New
Metowtnefor Old Christianity;1 '5P/M? Great Case of Liberty of Conscience Debated and Defended,1 etc.
Some of Perm1 s tracts were translated into German by Seebohm (Pyrniont, 1792 and 1798).
II. HIBTOBIOAL.
GBBAIU) OBOKAK : Hitttory of the Quakers, containing the Lives, Tenets, Sufferings, Trials, Speeches, and
Letters of all the mio*t Kvninent Quakers from the First Rbe of the Sect. London, 1696, Svo.
WIU.IAM SKWKI. ((1.1726): Hfatory of the Rise, Increase, and Progress of the Christian People called
Quakers. London, 1725, fol.; Gth edition, 1834, iu 2 vols.; also in Dutch and German. (Charles Laralj
pronounced this book ' far more edifying and affecting than any thing of Wesley and his colleagues.1)
JOHKPH BKBHB: Collection of the Su/erings of tin* People catted Quakers, for tite. Testimony of a Good Con*
wiener. London, 1758, 2 VO!K. fol.
JOHN tiocroir : The, History of the Quakers. Dublin, 1780, 4 vote. Svo.
SAM. M. JANN KY : History of the. Friends. Philadelphia, 1859-1867, 4 vols.
Biographies of G. Fox, by JONAH MABSU (1848), S. M. JANNKY (1853), W. TALLAOK (18C8).
Biographies of W. Feuu, by MAESIMAO (1791), CLAUKSON (1818), BLUB (1852), JANNEY (1852), HEPWOBTM
DIXON (1850).
III. EXPLANATORY AND APOLOGETIC.
TIIOB. OT.ATWCSON (d. 1846) : A Portraiture of Quakerism. London, 1806 ; 2d ed. 1807, 3 vols.
JOHHWI JOHN GTIBNRY (d. 1847) : Observations on the. Distinguishing Views and Practices of the Society of
Friend*. 7th edition, London, lfiS4 ; 2d American from the 7th London edition, New York, 1869.
TIIOB. EVANR: An Exposition of the Faith of the JReliffious Society of Friends. Philadelphia, 1828.
Approved by the Quakers at a meeting held in Philadelphia, Oct. 19, 1827, and often printed. (Man-
chester edition, 1867.)
'VU Ancient Testimony fifth? Religious Society of Friends, . . . revived and given forth ty the Yearly Meet-
ing held in Philadelphia in tJie. Fourth Montb, 1843. Philadelphia, at Friends' book-store. A summary
of orthodox Quakerism, chiefly from the writings of Barclay.
W. I. ATKINSON: Art. JFVfcnefo, in M'Clintock and Strongs Cyclop., Vol. III. pp. 667 sqq. (New York,
1870).
JFrlfnaa1 Revtew, a Meliftfous, JMera^/, and Miscellaneous Jownal. Philadelphia, so far twenty-nine
vols. till 1S70 (edited by Henry Hartshorne).
IV. PoMCMtOAt AND CRITICAL.
For a fall account of the literature against the Quakers, see Jos. SMITH'S Bibliotheca, anti-Quakeriana;
or, A Catalogue of Books adverse to the Society of Friends. Alphabetically wronged. With Biographical
1 It is piiblished at Dover, N. H., under the title, Treatise on the Faith and Practice of
tfie fVafl-triff BapHifs, and forms a little book of fifty pages. The doctrinal part is printed
in Vol. III. pp. 749 sqq*
jgQ THE CKEEBS OF CHBISTENDOM.
Notices of the Authors, together with the Answers which have leen given to some of them ^ Frtenfa and
others. London, 8vo, pp. 474
MOHMCB <K. C.): Symbolik, pp. 488-532; KTO. HOI-MANN: Symbolik, pp. 514-620 ; SOHKBOKBNBUBGBK,
behrlegri/e der klein&ren protest. Kirchenpwteien, pp. 69-102,
HISTORICAL SKETCH.
THE KELIGIOTTS SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, as they call themselves — or
QUAKERS, as they are usually called1-— originated in the Puritan com-
motion which roused all the religious energies of England.
It was founded by GEORGE Pox (1624-1690), one of the oddest
saints in Christendom, a self-taught and half -inspired man of genius,
who was called by a higher power from the shepherd's staff to the
evangelism of the baptism by fire and by the Spirit- In early youth
he felt inclined to ascetic retirement, like the hermits of old. lie
was a thorough mystic, and desired to get at the naked truth with-
out the obstruction of church, sacrament, ceremonies, theology, and
ordinary study, except the Scriptures spiritually understood. He loved
to commune with nature and nature's God, to walk in the inward
light, to enjoy the indwelling Christ, and to receive inspirations from
heaven. He spent much time in fasting and prayer, he wrestled
with the devil, and passed through deep mental distress, doubt, and
despondency. His moral character was beyond reproach — pure, truth-
ful, unworldly, just, temperate, meek, and gentle, yet bold and utterly
regardless of conventional usage and propriety. He began his public
testimony in his twenty-third year, and traveled through England, Hol-
land, and the American colonies, preaching and praying with pcnte-
costal fervor and power, revealing hidden truths, boldly attacking pride,
formality, and worldliness, and exhorting to repentance, humility, and
mercy. He sometimes interrupted the clergymen at public service,
1 The name t Friends' designates a democratic brotherhood in Christ. The name ' Quak-
ers' is sometimes wrongly derived from the warning of Fox to the magistrates c to quake for
fear' and 'to tremble at the Word of the Lord' (Isa. Ixvi. 2). It comes rather from their
own tremulous utterance of emotion in prayer and exhortation. Barclay (Apology, p, 310,
on Prop. XL) speaks of the trembling motion of the body under the power of the truth, by
which Quakers are exercised as in the day of battle, and says : ' From this the name of
Quakers, i. e.. Tremblers, was first reproachfully cast upon us ; which, though it be none of our
choosing, yet in this respect we are not ashamed of it, but hare rather reason to rejoice
therefore, even that we are sensible of this power that hath oftentimes laid hold of our ad-
versaries and made them yield unto us.' AUinson says (1. c, p, 668): 'The epithet Quakers
was given in derision, because they often trembled under an awful sense of the infinite
purity and majesty of God, and this name, rather submitted to than accepted by them, has
become general as a designation.'
§ 107. THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, OH QUAKERS. 861
and the lawyers in court, and warned them against the wrath to come,
lie was a stern ascetic, clad in leather, and wearing long hair. He
addressed every body 'tlion5 or < thee,' and sublimely ignored all world-
ly honors and dignities.1 He was nine times thrown into prison for
breaches of the peace and blasphemy, and suffered much hardship
and indignity with imperturbable temper; but towards the close of
his meteoric career he enjoyed comparative rest. His ' Journal' gives
an account of his labors, and is, in the language of Sir James Mackin-
tosh, ' one of the most extraordinary and instructive narratives in the
world.' Pox was providentially provided with the best aid in found-
ing his society.
ROBKRT BARCLAY (1648-1690) was the apologist and theologian of
the Quakers, the only one known to fame. Descended from a noble
family in Scotland, and educated in Paris, he became a convert first
to Romanism, then to Quakerism (1667). He had therefore the ad-
vantage of an experimental as well as theoretical knowledge of the
Scotch Calvinistic and the Roman Catholic creeds. He made vari-
ous missionary journeys in company with William Penn ; he walked
through the streets of Aberdeen in sackcloth and ashes, and was sev-
eral times imprisoned, but spent his last years in peace on his estate
of Ury,
WILLIAM PENN (16M-1718), the statesman and politician of the
Quakers, and the founder of Pennsylvania, was the son of an ad-
miral, and enjoyed the favor of James II. (his father's friend), which
he used in the cause of justice and mercy.2 He himself was ex-
pelled for his religion from the University of Oxford and his father's
house, and was twice imprisoned, but ably defended the liberty of con-
science, and was acquitted. By his influence more than twelve hun-
dred Quakers were set at liberty. In 1680 he obtained from the
king, in payment of a claim of £16,000, an extensive tract of land
west of the Delaware River, and organized a colony on the basis of
perfect freedom of religion (1682). The city of Philadelphia, or
1 'The Lord forbade him,' says Sewel, 'to put off his hat to any man, high or low; he
was required to Thou and Thee every man and woman without distinction, and not to bid
people Good-morrow or Good-evening; neither might he bow or scrape his leg to any one.7
a The charges of Lord Macaulay against Penn's integrity have been repelled by W. E. Fors-
te* {William Penu and Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1850) and J.Paget (Edinburgh, 1858),
862 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
brotherly love, became the chief asylum of persecuted Quakers, a
century afterwards the cradle of American independence, and in
1876 the theatre of the most remarkable centennial ever celebrated
by any nation. Penn was twice in America, but died in England.
He made a treaty with the Indians, of which Voltaire said that it
was the only treaty never sworn to and never broken. The United
States government would have fared better with the aborigines of the
country if it had followed the humane example of Roger Williams
and William Penn.
The Quakers, during the first forty years of their history, were more
severely persecuted than any sect of Christians had ever been, with
the exception of the Waldenses, and bore it with unflinching heroism.
Their eccentricities and fanatical excesses, their utter disregard for the
courtesies and conventionalities of civilized life, their fierce abuse of
the national churches (or 'steeple-houses') and clergymen, their opposi-
tion to tithes, salary, the oath, and military service, provoked the com-
bined hostility of magistrates, ministers, and people. Their places of
worship were invaded by the populace armed with staves, cudgels, and
pitchforks ; the windows broken by stones and bullets ; their religious
services rudely interrupted by hallooing and railing; their property
destroyed or sold; their persons ridiculed, buffeted, assailed with stones
and filth, dragged by the hair through the streets, or thrown into loath-
some prisons and punished as heretics and blasphemers.
Cromwell, who had a tender feeling for all c godly' radicals and
enthusiasts, was rather pleased with George Fox, with whom he had
an interview (1654) ; he allowed him to keep on his hat, and to speak
about the mysteries of spiritual experience ; and, although he disap-
proved his disorderly conduct, he pressed his hand and said, ' Come
again to my house ; if thou and I were together but an hour in every
day, we should be nearer one to the other.' But Cromwell could not
control the local magistrates and the rabble.
Under Charles II. the Quakers fared much worse, and notwith-
standing the influence of Penn upon James IL, who favored them for
political reasons in the interest of the Koman Catholics, they contin-
ued to suffer until the Act of Toleration, in 1689, or rather until
1696, when by a special Act of Parliament their solemn affirmation
was recognized as equivalent to an oath.
§ 107. THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, OR QUAKERS. 863
During the period from 1650 to 1689, according to the patient re-
searches of their historian, Joseph Besse, no less than 13,258 Quakers
suffered fine, imprisonment, torture, and mutilation in England, Scot-
land, and Ireland, 219 were banished, and 360 perished in prisons,
some almost literally rotting in pestilential cells.
In New England they were not treated any better : 170 instances of
hard usage are enumerated, 47 were banished, and 4 hanged (three
men and one woman, Mary Dyer). In explanation, though not in
justification, of this severity of the Puritan colony towards them, we
should remember those offenses against public decency which led
some Quaker men and women to invade churches during divine serv-
ice, and to promenade the streets of Boston, Cambridge, and Salem
in sackcloth and ashes, even in puris naturalibus, for ' a sign and
wonder5 (in imitation of Isa. xx. 2, 3), to symbolize the 'naked truth,'
and to utter a prophetic ' testimony' against the 'hireling priests/ the
tyrannical magistrates, and the wicked and perverse generation, warn-
ing them of the impending judgments of the Lord, who would come
with fire and sword.1 Even Eoger Williams, in his debate with the
Quakers at Newport (1672), with all his liberality, condemned such
conduct.2
Notwithstanding these persecutions, the Society of Friends spread
rapidly, and numbered about 70,000 members towards the close of
the seventeenth century. They afterwards diminished in England,
but increased in America, though not as much as other denomina-
tions. On the Continent they had only a few adherents in Holland
and Germany.
The fanatical heat of the martyr period of the Quakers cooled down
with the cessation of persecution. They became a sober, quiet, orderly,
and peaceful community. The oddities which they still retain are
perfectly harmless, and form an interesting chapter in the history of
1 Palfrey, History of New England, Vol. II. pp. 461-485; Dexter, As to Roger WilL
tarns,' etc., pp. 124 sqq. One such case of Oriental teaching by signs occurred also in
England, and is mentioned by Fox himself in his Journal: ' The Lord made one to go naked
amongst you, a figure of tby nakedness, and as a sign, before your destruction cometh, that
you might see that you were naked and not covered with the truth.' See Stoughton, The
Church of the Commonwealth, p. 360.
9 He wrote a curious book, George Fox digged out of his Burrowes, etc., which was repub-
lished by the Narragansett Club, 1872, with an introduction by Prof. Diman. Comp. Dex^
ter, 1. c. p. 188.
THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
morals. Quakerism is not so much a new theology as a new mode of
Christian life, representing the utmost simplicity in opposition to show,
ornament, and amusement
QUAKER CONFESSIONS.
The Quakers are more radical than the Independents and the Bap-
tists. They utterly broke with historical Christianity, and reject its
visible ordinances, which the Independents and the Baptists retained.
They kept aloof from the Puritans, and would have nothing whatever
to do with the national English or any other Church or sect in Christen-
dom. They oppose all outward authority in religion, though it be the
letter o£ the Bible itself.
With such views they can not consistently recognize any binding
standards of doctrine which might obstruct the freedom of interpreta-
tion of the divine Word under the direct illumination of the Spirit.
Nevertheless, with all their radicalism, the Quakers retained the sub-
stance of the Christian faith, and, following the example of the early
Christians, they set forth their tenets in a number of apologies against
the misrepresentations of their enemies. The first ' Confession and
Profession of Faith in God' was published by Richard Farnsworth
in 1658. Similar apologetic documents followed in 1659 and 1661
by George Fox the Younger, in 1662 by John Crook, in 1664 by Will-
iam Smith, in 1668 by William Penn, in 1671 by Whitehead and
Penn, in 1698 by Penn and others, in 1671, 1675, and 1682 by George
Fox.1
The ablest and most authoritative exposition of the belief of the
Quakers is the c Apology ' of Eobert Barclay, written in his quiet re-
treat in Ury, Scotland, 1675, and addressed to Charles II. It is his
most elaborate work, and is still held in the highest estimation by the
orthodox Friends. He pays the school-divinity the compliment that,
although it takes up almost a man's whole life-time to learn, it c brings
not a whit nearer to God, neither makes any man less wicked or more
righteous.' ' Therefore/ he continues, 'hath God laid aside the wise
and the learned and the disputers of this world, and hath chosen a few
despicable and unlearned instruments as he did fishermen of old, to
1 On these earlier confessions, see Evans, pp. xii. sqq.
§ 107. THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, OR QUAKERS. 865
publish his pure and naked truth, and to free it of those mists and
fogs wherewith the clergy hath clouded it,' Nevertheless, Barclay
makes use of a considerable amount of learning — classical, patristic,
and modern— for the defense of his views.
The ' Catechism ' of Barclay (written in 1673) treats in fourteen chap-
ters of the doctrines of the Christian faith, and answers the questions
in the language of the Bible, without addition or comment, evidently
for the purpose of showing the entire harmony of the Quakers with the
written Word of God. Their distinctive peculiarities are skillfully put
into the question, and the Scripture passages are so selected as to con-
firm them.1 To the Catechism is added a brief ' Confession of Faith/
in twenty -three Articles, which is almost entirely composed of Scripture
1 Comp. Oh. XI., concerning Baptism, and Bread and Wine. I will select, as a specimen,
the questions on the Lord's Supper :
' Ques. I perceive there was a baptism of water, which was John's baptism, and is there-
fore by John himself contradistinguished from Christ's : was there not likewise something
of the like nature appointed by Christ to his disciples, of eating bread, and drinking wine,
in remembrance of him?
vu?lws. For I have received of the Lord, that which also I delivered unto you, That the
Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread ; and when he had given
thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you; this do
in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped,
saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood ; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in re-
membrance of me. 1 Cor. xi. 23-25.
* QMS. How long was this to continue ?
M»w. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death
till he come. 1 Cor. xi. 26.
* Que.fi. Did Christ promise to come again to his disciples ?
<Ans. And I will not leave you comfortless; I will come to you. Jesus answered and
said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words, and my Father will love him, and
we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. John xiv. 18, 23.
1 Ques. Waa this an inward coming ?
'Ans. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.
John xiv. J>0.
* Ques. But it would seem this was even practiced by the church of Corinth, after Christ
was come inwardly : was it so, that there were certain appointments positively commanded,
yea, and zealously and conscientiously practiced by the saints of old, which were not of per-
petual continuance, nor yet now needful to be practiced in the Church ?
'Ans. If I then your Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye ought also to wash one
another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you.
John xiii. H, 15.
* For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burthen
than these necessary things ; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood,
and from things strangled, and from fornication ; from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall
do well : Faro ye well. Acts xv. 28, 20.
* Is any man sick among you ? let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray
over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. James v. 14.
* Qws. These commands are no less positive than the other ; yea, some of them are
asserted as the very sense of the Holy Ghost, as no less necessary than abstaining from
fornication, and yet the generality of Protestants have laid them aside, as not of perpetual
continuance : but what other Scriptures are there, to show that it is not necessary for that
pjf bread and wine to continue.?
866 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
THE DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF THE FRIENDS.
The Friends are few in number, but honorably distinguished for
their philanthropy, their consistent advocacy of religious freedom and
the universal rights of men, their zeal in behalf of prison reform, the
abolition of slavery and war. In private and social life they excel in
simplicity, honesty, neatness, temperance, self-control, industry, and
thrift. Their oddities in dress and habits are the shadows of virtues.
In theology and religion they are on the extreme border of Protest-
ant orthodoxy, and reject even a regular ministry and the visible sacra-
ments ; yet they strongly believe in the supernatural and the constant
presence and power of the Holy Spirit. They hold the essentials of
the evangelical faith, the divine inspiration and infallibility of the
Scriptures (though they disparage the letter and the human means of
interpretation), the doctrine of the Trinity (in substance, though not in
name),1 the incarnation, the divinity of Christ, the atonement by his
blood, the regeneration and sanctification by the Spirit, everlasting life
and everlasting punishment. And while they deny the necessity of
water baptism and the Lord's Supper as a participation of the ele-
ments of bread and wine, and regard such rites as a relapse into the
religion of forms and shadows, they believe in the inward substance
or invisible grace of the sacraments, viz., the baptism of the Spirit and
fire, and the vital communion with Christ by faith. They belong to
the supernaturalistic line of Protestant dissenters, while the Socinians
and Unitarians tend in the opposite rationalistic direction.
Several of the peculiar views and practices of the Quakers were
'Ans. For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink ; but righteousness and peace and
joy in the Holy Ghost. Rom. xiv. 17.
* Let no man therefore judge you in meat or drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the
new moon, or of the Sabbath days. Wherefore if ye he dead with Christ from the rudiments
of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances (touch not,
taste not, handle not : which all are to perish with the using), after the commandments and
doctrines of men ? Col. ii. 16, 20-22.
' Ques. These Scriptures are very plain, and say as much for the abolishing of this, as to
any necessity, as aught that can be alleged for the former : but what is the bread then, where-
with the saints are to be nourished ?
'Ans. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that
bread from heaven, hut my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven,' etc.
Then follows the whole section, John vi. 32-35, 48-68.
1 1 can not and the term Trinity in Fox's Journal nor in Barclay's Apology, but both
teach very clearly that Christ is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God, that all knowledge of
the Father comes through the Son, and all knowledge of the Son through the Holy Spirit.
§ 107. THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, OB QUAKERS. 867
anticipated by Carlstadt, the Zwickau Prophets, the Mennonites, and es-
pecially by Caspar von Schwenkfeld, a pious and retiring nobleman of
Silesia (born 1490, banished 1548, d.1561 at Ulm). Schwenkfeld em-
braced and preached the doctrines of the Lutheran Reformation with
zeal till 1524, when he adopted, as by a higher revelation, a peculiar
view of the Lord's Supper, explaining the words of institution to mean,
My body is this bread, i. e., spiritual nourishment for the soul.1 He
also taught the deification of Christ's flesh, and opposed bibliolatry
and all outward ecclesiasticism. A small remnant of his sect that
was banished from Germany still survives in the eastern counties of
Pennsylvania.2 There is, however, no historical connection between
George Fox and these predecessors. His views were entirely his own.
The history of the Eoinan Catholic Church furnishes a parallel in the
quietism of Miguel de Molinos (1627-1698), who taught that Christian
perfection consists in the sweet repose of all the mental faculties in
God, and in indifference to all the actions of the body. He was con-
demned as a heretic by Pope Innocent XL (1687), and shut up for
life in a monastic prison.
Quakerism is a system of mystic spiritualism. It is the only organ-
ized sect of mystics in England and America. The strong practical
common-sense of the English race is constitutionally averse to mystic
tendencies. Quakerism is an extreme reaction against ecclesiasticism,
sacerdotalism, and sacramentalism. It demonstrates the paramount
importance of the spirit in opposition to the worship of the letter; the
superiority and independence of the inward and invisible in opposition
to the overestimate of the external and visible; and the power of
silence against the excess of speech.
Christianity undoubtedly is spirit and life, and may exist under dif-
ferent forms, or if necessary without form, like the spirit in the disem-
bodied state. But the normal condition is a sound spirit in a sound
body, and while God is independent of his own ordinances, we are
bound to them. The Quakers make the exception the rule, but by the
1 He understood o%5/*a and alpa to be the subject, and rovro the predicate.
* See Erbkam, Geschichte der protest. Sekten im Zeitalter der Reformation, pp. 357 sqq.,
and Kadelbach, Ge&chichteK.v, Schwenkfeld '*, etc.(Lauban, 1861). The German Catechism
of the Schwenkfeldians of Pennsylvania, by Christopher Schultz, Senior (translated by Daniel
Kupp, Skippackville, Pa. 18G3), teaches Schwenkfeld's peculiar doctrine of the Lord's Supper,
but not the deification of Christ's flesh.
868 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
law of reaction formalism takes revenge. Their antif ormalism becomes
itself a stereotyped form, and their peculiar hats and coats are as distinct-
ive as the clerical surplice and gown. When they leave their Society
they usually join the Episcopal Church, the most formal among the Prot-
estant denominations.
THE INNER LIQ-HT.
The ruling principle of Quakerism is the universal inner light.1 It
is also called the seed, the Word of God, the gift of God, the indwell-
ing Christ. This is not to be confounded with reason or conscience,
or any natural faculty of man.2 It is supernatural and divine in
its origin ; it is a direct illumination of the mind and heart by the
Spirit of God for the purpose of salvation. It is the light of the
Logos, which shines 'in darkness' and clighteth every man that cometh
into the world.5 3 It is Christ himself dwelling in man as the fountain
of life, light, and salvation. It is the primary source of all religious
truth and knowledge. It opens the sense of spiritual mysteries; it
convinces and converts; it gives victory over sin, and brings joy and
peace. It is communicated to men without distinction of raco or re-
ligion or education, not indeed in the same measure, but in a degree
sufficient to save them if they obey it, and to condemn thorn if they
reject it. * The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared
to all men.'* A day of merciful visitation comes to every human be-
1 Penn (in the Preface to Fox's Journal, p. xiv.) calls it * the fundamental principle which
is as the corner-stone of their fabric, and, to speak eminently and properly, their ehuracter-
istic or main distinguishing point or principle, viz., the light of Christ within, as God's gift
for man's salvation. This is as the root of the goodly tree of doctrines that grow and branched
out from it. ' Fox's Journal is full of it ; see the list of passages in Vol. II. pp. 551 HO. of the
6th ed. (Leeds, 1836). A
fl Barclay (Apol p. 74) rejects the errors of Pelagians and Socinians, and teaches the cor-
ruption of human nature in consequence of the fall, but maintains, in opposition to Augiw-
tine, Luther, and Calvin, that God does not impute sin to infants until they commit actual
transgression. Gurney says 0- o. p. 6) : * Never did they [the Quakers] dare to consider this
light as a part of fallen man's corrupt nature; never did they hesitate to ascribe it to the free
and universal grace of God through Christ Jesus our Lord.'
3 John i. 9. The difference in the construction of Iptfiuwv tig rov Kfopw does not affect
the universality, which is sufficiently sustained by Travra &vdp<wov] but the question is
whether John means the light of reason or the light of grace, and in the latter case whether
it is sufficient for salvation or merely preparatory to it. When Fox, on his second visit to
Cromwell (in 1656), quoted this passage, he was met with the objection that John meant
'the natural light;' but he 'showed him the contrary— that it was divine and spiritual, pro-
ceeding from Christ, the spiritual and heavenly man' (Journal, Vol. I. p. JJ8B).
1 Titus it 1 1. Other passages quoted by Quakers for their favorite doctrine are, Gen. vi.
§ 107. THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, OR QUAKERS. 869
ing at least once in his life, and marks a critical turning-point which
determines his character in this world and his eternal fate in the
world to come. To many the voice from heaven speaks often.
Cornelius was under the divine influence of that light before the
arrival of Peter and the hearing of the gospel. Socrates traced his
better impulses to the divine monitor in his breast, who from child-
hood checked his evil passions without coercion.1 The savage Indians
of North America followed the light when, after having been long en-
gaged in war, they sacrificed a spotless white dog to the Great Spirit
and threw their tomahawks into the lake.3
If Christ died for all men, his benefits must in some way be offered
to all. He is the personal Light of the whole world, which shines into
all parts of the human family backward to Adam and forward to
the end of time. As many are sinners without ever having heard of
Adam and the fall, so many are partakers of Christ without any ex-
ternal knowledge of him or the Scriptures. Else idiots, infants, and
the saints who died before Christ's advent could not be saved. His-
torical knowledge can not save without experimental knowledge, but
experimental knowledge may save without historical knowledge.
The inner light agrees with the teaching of the Bible, though not
confined to its letter. It is the true interpreter of the Bible, which
without it remains a sealed book. It holds in this respect the same
position which the Koman Catholic Church assigns to unwritten tradi-
tion, with this important difference, that tradition is an outward, ob-
jective authority, and confined to the visible Church, while the inner
light is subjective, and shines upon all men.
Quakerism thus boldly breaks through the confines of historical
8 ; Beat. xxx. 14 ; Rom. x. 3 ; Luke ii. 10 ; Rom. ii. 14, 15 ; Col. i. 23 ; Eph. v. 13 ; Acts
x. 85.
1 Apol Soc. He calls his tiaipwiov (in Jowett's translation) * a voice which comes to me
and always forbids me to do something which I am going to do, but never commands me to
do any thing, and which stands in the way of my being a politician.* He goes on to say that
in politics he would have perished long ago without doing any good either to the people or
to himself. The case of Socrates is not mentioned by Barclay, but by Gurney, p. 42 : ' When
Socrates, as compared with his fellow-countrymen, attained to an eminent degree of disin-
terestedness, integrity, justice, and charity ; when he obeyed the counsels of that unknown
monitor who so frequently checked him in the hour of temptation; when he bore so clear a
tOHtimoriy to virtue as to be persecuted to death for virtue's sake — on what scriptural grounds
can any man deny that he was made a partaker, to a certain degree, of a divine influence ?'
a Gurney, p. 42.
870 THE CHEEPS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Christianity and the means of grace, indefinitely expands the sphere of
revelation, and carries the saving power of Christ, even in this present
life, into the regions of heathen darkness. It must consistently regard
all virtuous and pious heathen as unconscious Christians, who, like the
Athenians of old, c unknowingly' worship an ' unknown God.' Justin
Martyr, the first Christian philosopher, advanced the idea that the
'Logos spermaticos,' Le., the Eternal Word of God, before his incarna-
tion, scattered the divine seed of truth and righteousness among the
Greeks as well as the Jews. Zwingli taught the salvation of many
heathen and of all children dying in infancy. But these were isolated
private opinions; the doctrinal standards of the orthodox Churches —
Greek, Latin, and Protestant — know of no Christ and no salvation out-
side of Christendom and without the written or preached gospel. The
Quakers teach the absolute universality, not indeed of salvation, but of
the offer and the opportunity of salvation.
This doctrine is the corner-stone of their system.l It is the source
of their democracy, their philanthropy, their concern for the lowest and
most neglected classes of society, their opposition to slavery, war, and
violence, their meekness under suffering, their calmness and serenity
of temper. But the same doctrine explains also their comparative
disregard of the written Scriptures, the visible Church, the ministry,
the means of grace, the forms of worship, and their indifference to
heathen missions. There is, however, more recently among ortho-
dox Friends a growing disposition to aid in the circulation of the
Bible, the work of foreign missions, and to associate with evangel-
ical Christians of other Churches.
BAECLAY78 THESES.
Barclay reduces the doctrinal system of the Friends to fifteen prop-
ositions or theological theses, which are briefly as follows:2
1. The Foundation of Knowledge. — The height of happiness is in
the true knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ (John xvii. 3).
2. Immediate Revelation. — This comes from tiie Son of God (Matt,
xi. 27) through the testimony of the Spirit.
This is the inner light which has already been sufficiently explained.
1 Hence their name, 'Professors of the Light,' * Friends of Light,' * Children of Light.'
a See them in full, Vol. III. p. 749.
§ 107. THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, OK QUAKERS. 871
3. The Holy Scriptures. — They contain the revelations of the Spirit
of God to the saints. They are a declaration of the fountain, but not
the fountain itself ; they are the secondary rule of faith and morals,
subordinate to the Spirit from which they derive all their excellency
and certainty (John xvi. 13).
4. The Condition of Man after the Fall. — All men are by nature
fallen, degenerated, and spiritually dead, but hereditary sin is not im-
puted to infants until they make it their own by actual transgression.
Socinianism and Pelagianism are rejected, but also the doctrine of the
< Papists and most Protestants,' that a man without the grace of God
may be a true minister of the gospel.
5. Universal Redemption by Christ. — God wills all men to be saved;
Christ died for all men; the light is sent to every man for salvation,.if
not resisted.
On this point the Quakers side with Lutherans and Arminians
against Calvinists, but go far beyond them.
6. Objections to the universality of redemption refuted.
7. Justification. — Man is regenerated and justified when he receives
the inner light. It is not by our works that we are justified, but by
Christ who is both the gift and the giver, and the cause producing the
effects in us.
The Quakers closely connect justification with sanctification, and
approach the Roman view, with this difference, that they teach justifi-
cation in our works, not on account of our works. Penn distinguishes
between legal justification, that is, the forgiveness of past sins through
Christ, the alone propitiation, and moral justification or sanctification,
whereby man is made inwardly just through the cleansing and sancti-
fying power and Spirit of Christ.
8. Perfection. — Man may become free from actual sinning, and so
far perfect ; yet perfection admits of growth, and there remains a pos-
sibility of sinning.1
The Methodists have substantially adopted this view, and call it
entire consecration or perfect love.
9. Perseverance.— Those who resist the light, or disobey it after re-
1 Penn (Preface to Fox's Journal, p. xiv.) says that the Friends * never held a perfection
in wisdom and glory in this life, or from infirmities or death, as some have with a weak or
ill mind imagined and insinuated against them.1
VOL. I— K K ¥
872 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
ceiving it, fall away (Heb. vi. 4-6 ; Tim.i. 6); but it is possible in this
life to attain such a stability in the truth from which there can be no
total apostasy.
This is a compromise between Calvinism and Anninianism.
10. The Ministry. — Those and only those are qualified ministers of
the gospel who are illuminated and called by the Spirit, whether male
or female, whether learned or unlearned. These ought to preach with-
out hire or bargaining (Matt. x. 8), although they may receive a vol-
untary temporal support from the people to whom they administer
in spiritual things.
11. Worship. — It consists 'in the inward and immediate moving and
drawing of the Spirit, which is neither limited to places or times or
persons.' All other worship which man appoints and can begin and
end at his pleasure is superstition, will-worship, and idolatry.
All forms and even sacred music are excluded from the naked spir-
itualism of Quaker worship. It is simply reverent communion of the
BOU! with God, uttered or silent. I once attended a Quaker meeting
in London whose solemn silence was more impressive than many a
sermon. I felt the force of the word, ' There was silence in heaven
for the space of half an hour.' At another meeting I heard one man
and several women exhort and pray in a tremulous voice and with
reverential awe, as if in the immediate presence of the great Je-
hovah. All depends upon the power of the Holy Spirit.
12. Baptism. — It is 'a pure and spiritual thing, a baptism of the
Spirit and of fire,' by which we are purged from sin (1 Pet. iii. 21 ;
Rom. vi. 4; Ool. ii. 12 ; Gal. iii. 27; John iii. 30). Of this the water-
baptism of John was a figure commanded for a time. The baptism of
infants is a human tradition, without Scripture precept or practice.
13. The Communion of the Body and Blood of CIvrist is likewise
inward and spiritual, of which the breaking of bread at the last Supper
was a figure. It was used for a time, for the sake of the weak, even
by those who had received the substance, as the washing of feet and
the anointing of the sick with oil was practiced ; all which are only
the shadows of better things. (John vi. 32-35 ; 1 Cor. x. 16, 17.)
This doctrine of the sacraments is a serious departure from the
universal consensus of Christendom and the obvious intention of our
Saviour. It can only be accounted for as a protest against the op-
§ 107. THE SOCIETY OF FKIENDS, OR QUAKERS. 873
posite extreme, which substitutes the visible sign for the invisible
grace.
14:. The Power of the Civil Magistrate. — It does not extend over
the conscience, which God alone can instruct and govern, provided
always that no man under pretense of conscience do any thing de-
structive to the rights of others and the peace of society. All civil
punishments for matters of conscience proceed from the spirit of Gain
the murderer.
Here the Quakers, like the Baptists, commit themselves most un-
equivocally to the doctrine of universal religious liberty as a part of
their creed.
15. Salutations and Recreations. — Under this head are forbidden
the taking off the hat to a man, the bowings and cringings of the body,
and 'all the foolish or superstitious formalities' which feed pride and
vanity and belong to the vain pomp and glory of this world; also all
unprofitable and frivolous plays and recreations which divert the mind
from the fear of God, from sobriety and gravity. Penn said of Fox
that he was ' civil beyond all forms of breeding.5
The Apology of Barclay is a commentary on these propositions.
NOTE. — THE HICKSITJES.— In the year 1827 a schism took place among the Friends in
Philadelphia, and extended to most of the yearly meetings in America, but had no influence
in England. Since then the Quakers are divided into ' orthodox7 Quakers and ' Hicksites,'
although the latter refuse to be called by any other name but that of 'Friends' or * Quakers.1
The founder of this rupture was ELI AS HICKS, born in Hempstead, Long Island, March 19,
1708; died in Jericho, N.Y., Feb. 27, 1830.
He took strong ground against slavery, and abstained from all participation in the fruits of
slave labor. He was for a long time an acceptable preacher, but early in the present century
he advocated radical Unitarian and other heterodox doctrines, which shocked the majority
of the Quakers and led to commotion, censure, and schism. The first separation took place
in the Yearly Meeting at Philadelphia, and then a similar one in New York, Baltimore, Ohio,
and Indiana. Many espoused the cause of Hicks, in the interest of religious liberty and
progress, without indorsing his heretical opinions on the articles of the Trinity, the divinity,
and the atonement of Christ.
The extreme left of the Hicksites broke off in 1858 in Chester County, Pa., and organized
a separate party under the name of Progressive Friends. They opened the door to all who
^cognize the equal brotherhood of the human family, without regard to sex, color, or condi-
tion, and engage in works of beneficence and charity. They disclaim ail creeds and dis-
ciplinary authority, and are opposed to every form of ecclesiastieism.
The Hicksite movement drove the orthodox Quakers more closely to the Scriptures, and
called forth several official counter- demonstrations.
On the 'Hicksite' Quakers, see EFJAS HICKS, Journal of Us Life and Labors, and his
Sermons, Phila. 1828 ; and JANNKY (a Hicksite), History of the Society of Friends, Vol. IV,
874 THE CKEEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
§ 108. THE MORAVIANS.
See the Literature on the Bohemian Brethren, § 75, p. 565, and the Waldenses, p. 568.
DOOTBINAL ANP COWFESSIONAL.
I, ZINZETTOOBF : Ein und zwanzig Discourse ub&r die Augsburgische Confession, 1747-1748 (nevei pub-
lished through the trade, and therefore rare). Also the other writings of Zinzendorf, and especially
his hymns and spiritual poems, collected aud published by ALBEBT KNAPJP, with a spirited sketch of
his life and character (Stuttg. 1845).
AUG. GOTTLIEB SPANGENBEBG : Idea JPidei Fratrum oder Kurzer Begriff der christlichen Lehre in den
evang. BrMergemeinen. Barby, 1778, 1782 ; Gnadau, 1833 ; English ed. Lond. 1784. Accepted as author-
ity. By the same : Declaration uber die zeither gegen uns ausgegangenen Beschuldigungen. Berlin, 1772.
HERMANN PLITT (Pres. of the Morav. Theol, Seminary in Gnadenfeld): EvangeliscJie Qlaubenslehre
nach Schrift und Erfahrung. Gotha, 1864, 2 vols. Not authoritative. By the same: Zinzendorf 'a
Theologie. Gotha, 1869-1874, 3 vols.
The hymns and liturgies of the Moravian Church.
EDM. DE SOIIWEINITZ (Morav. Bishop) : The Moravian Manual. Publ. by authority of the Synod. 2d
enlarged ed. Bethlehem, Pa. 1869.
II. Among the early opponents of the Moravians we mention FBESEKIOS, FABBIOIXTS, GBOBCUUS, and
the celebrated commentator, J. A. BENOBL (Abriss der sogen. Brudergemeinde, in welchem die Lehre und
die game Sache gepruft, das Gute und Bdse dabei unterschMen, etc. Stuttg. 1751 ; republ. Berlin, 1859).
in. Modern representations by divines not of the Moravian Church.
MOHLEB: Symbolik, pp. 533 sqq. ; SOIINEOKENBUBGICB: Vorlesungen uber die kleiner en protest. Kirchen*
parteien, pp. 152-171 ; B. HOFMANN ; Symbolikt pp. 533 sqq.
HISTORICAL.
I. Biographies of Count Zinzendorf.
SPANGENBEB&: Leben des Graf en Zinzendorf. Barby, 1772-1775, 8 vols. Thorough, reliable, and
prolix.
J. G. MULLEB (brother of the Swiss historian, John von M.) : Bekenntnisse merkwurdiger Manner von
tichselbst. 3 vols. 1775.
L. C. VON SOHBAUTENBAOH : Der Graf v. Zinz. una die Brudergemeinde seiner Zeit, herausgeg. v. F. W.
KdlUng. Gnadau, 1851. Written in 1782, but not for publication, and kept as MS. in the Archives of
the Moravian Church till 1851. One of the most interesting works on Zinzendorf, setting forth the
philosophy of his religion.
VABNHAOEN VON ENSE : Leben Zinzendorf >s. Berlin, 1830 ; 2d ed. 1846. The view of an outsider, eim-
ilar to Southey's Life of Wesley.
J. W. VKBBEOK : Or. Zinzendorf^ Leben und Gharakter. Gnadau, 1845. An extract from Spangenberg.
F. BOVET : Le Comte de Zinzendorf. Paris, 1860.
G. BTJBKHABDT: Zinzendorf und die Brudergemeinde, in Eerzog's Beal-Encykl. Vol. XVHI. pp. 608-502
(Gotha, 1864), and published as a separate volume.
IL Histories of the Moravian Church.
Many MS. sources in the Archives of Herrnhut, Saxony, especially the 'Lissa Folios,' relating to the
history of the Ancient Bohemian aud Moravian Church; the 'Diarium der Gemeindo zu Herrnhut*
down to 1736 ; the journals and letters of Ziuzendorf ; and the history both of the Ancient and Be-
newed Church, by John Plitt, from 1722 to 1836, in 9 vols.
The Bftding'sche Sammlung. Budingen and Leipzig, 1742-1744, 3 vols. A collection of documents.
The Barby'sche Sammlung. Barby, 1760, 2 vols. A continuation of the former.
DAVID CBANZ: A Ite und neue Bruderhistorie (down to 1769). Barby, 1772; continued by HBQNBB. in
8 parts, 1791-1816. Engl. transl. by La Trobe, London, 1780.
Die Gedenktage der erneuerten Bruderkirche (Memorial Days of the Renewed Brethren's Church).
Gnadau, 1820. '
Bp. HOLMES : History of the United Brethren. Lond. 1825, 2 vole.
A. BOST : JSistoire ae I'Eglise des Freres de Boheme et Moravte. Paris, 1844, 2 vols. Abridged English
transl. publ. by the Relig. Tract Soc. of London, 1848.
Bp. E. W. CBOGEB: Geschichte der erneuerten Bruderkirche (down to 1822). Gnadau, 1852-1854, 8 vols.
CThe same wrote also a Geschichte der alten Bruderkirche. Gnadau, 1865 and 1866, 2 vols,)
VEBBEEK : Geschichte der alien und neuen Br&der- Unititt. Gnadau, 1857.
H- Pw^: Die Genuine Gottes in ihrem Geiste und ihren Formen mit Beziehung aufdie Brudergemeine,
Dr. NITZSOH : Kirctengeschichtliche Bedeutung der Brudergetneinde. Berlin, 1853.
MlSSIONABY.
The missionary literature of the Moravians is very large and important, and embraces the works
of CRAW* on Greenland (1767) ; OLDENDOBP U777) on Danish Missions; HKOKEWELUEB (1817) on Indian.
§ 103. tEtE MORAVIANS. 875
Missions ; L. KQLHING, UebenticU der Mistiongeschichte d&r evang. BrMerMrche (1832 and 1833) ; Bp. VON
SOUWBINITZ, I4fe of David Zeisiberger (Phila. 1870). Comp. the Missionary Manual and Directory of the LTnitan
JPratrwn, Bethlehem, Pa. 1875.
HISTORICAL SKETCH.
We must distinguish between the old Bohemian and Moravian Breth-
ren who belonged to the Slavonic race, and the new Moravians who are
chiefly German or of German descent. The connecting link between
the two was the celebrated educator, JOHN AMOS COMENIUS (1592-1671),
the Jeremiah of the former, and the John the Baptist of the latter,
who, hoping against hope for the resurrection of the Bohemian Unitas
Fratrum, nearly crushed to death by persecution, left behind him their
order of discipline, and made provision for the ordination of two
bishops, that through them the succession might be preserved in a qui-
escent state, until, in 1735, it was transferred to the renewed Church.
The new MORAVIAN CHURCH x took its origin from the remnant (the
* Hidden Seed3) of the Bohemian and Moravian Brethren, to whom
Count ZINZENDORF (1700-1760), under the guidance of a special provi-
dence, gave an hospitable refuge on his estates at Berthelsdorf,in Upper
Lusatia, Saxony. The asylum was called fferrnhut (the Lord's Pro-
tection), and became the mother church and the centre of the denomi-
nation.
The little colony of immigrants from Moravia soon increased, by the
accession of German families of the pietistic school of Spener, to the
number of three hundred souls. It was organized on the basis of the
Ratio Disciplines of Comenius. David Nitschmann was consecrated
the first bishop by Daniel Ernst Jablonsky (court chaplain in Berlin)
and Christian Sitkov, the surviving bishops of the old succession (March
13, 1735). This consecration was performed secretly in the presence
of only two members of the Bohemian congregation in Berlin, for the
sole purpose of sending ordained ministers to the distant missions and
colonies. It was not intended to establish an episcopal form of govern-
ment, separate and distinct from the national Lutheran Church, but
this separation was the natural consequence. The second bishop was
Count Zinzendorf himself, who gave up his office at the Saxon court
1 Also called the UNITAS FBATRTJM, the UNITED BRETHREN, the MORAVIAN BRETHREN ;
In German, BRUDERGBMEINB, or HBRRNHUTER. They must not be confounded with the
Methodist 'United Brethren in the United States,' founded by Rev. William Otterbein IB
1800.
876 ME CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
and his worldly prospects to devote himself entirely to the Church
of his own planting.1 With all his eccentri cities , he was one of the
purest and most remarkable men in the history of Christianity, a relig-
ious and poetic genius, and a true nobleman by nafrure and divine grace
as well as by rank. He had b.xit one all-absorbing passion — Christ and
him crucified.2 From his childhood, when he used to write letters to
his beloved Saviour, this sacred fire burned in him, and continued to
burn till he was called to see him face to face, He early conceived
the idea, by planting in the spirit of Spener a forue Church in the nom-
inal Church, to reform the Church at home, and to carry the gospel to
the heathen. We may call him the German Wesley ; he was an or-
ganizer like John Wesley, and a true hymnist like his brother Charles.
The Oxford Methodists started with a legalistic type of piety, but they
received a new inspiration from the childlike, cheerful, serene, and
sublime trust in God which characterized the Moravians with whom,
they came in contact.
The patriarchs of Moravianisra — Zinzendorf, Nitschmann, and Span
genberg — like the patriarchs of Methodism, labored in both hemispheres
at a time when the stagnant State Churches of Germany and England
cared little or nothing for their children in America. They founded
Bethlehem (1741) and Nazareth in Pennsylvania, and other colonies
which remain to this day. Zinzendorf endeavored to unite the other
German denominations and sects in Pennsylvania into one Church,
but in vain.3
The Moravian brotherhood is par excellence a missionary society at
home and abroad. It has but few regularly organized congregations
scattered in Christian lands, but in an age of in differential*! and ration-
alism they were like cities of refuge and oases in the wilderness, with
fresh fountains and green pastures for multitudes who flocked to them
for refreshment.4 They are still holding up the model of living con-
It is an interesting fact that Frederic William L, king of Prussia, advised Zinzendorf to
get the old [Moravian Episcopal ordination, and that Zinzendorf conferred on the subject with
Bishop Jablonsfcy, and with his friend, the Archbishop of Canterbury (John Potter)
Ich habe nvr eine Passion, und die ist J8r, nur Er?
3On the unionistic labors of Count Zinzendorf in Pennsylvania from 1742 to 1748 see an
interesting article of the Rev. L. F. Beichel (mostly from unpublished MSB.) in Schaff'i
Oeutscher ILirchenfreund for 1849, pp. 93-107. '
*Hase CKirchengeschichte, p. 636, 9th edJ: « JDfc Fritmmigkeit to in fferrnhut eine M*
§ 108. THE MORAVIANS. 877
jregations of real Christians. Besides, they have mission stations, call-
ad Diaspora (1 Pet. i. 1), for those who wish to derive spiritual benefit
from them without severing their connection with the established
Churches. These half-members may be compared to the Jewish prose-
lytes of the gate as distinguished from the proselytes of righteousness.
The Moravians, however, are free from the spirit of proselytism,
and endeavor to promote peace and union among the Christians at
home. But they are aggressive abroad, and concentrate their energies
on foreign missions. Their chief glory lies in the extraordinary zeal
and self-denial with which, since 1732, they have labored for the con-
version of the most ignorant and degraded heathen in Greenland, Lab
rador, among the American Indians, and the African negroes and Es-
quimaux, at a time when orthodox Protestant Christendom had not yet
awoke to a sense of its long-neglected duty. To the small band of
Moravians belongs the first place of honor in the work of foreign
missions.
DISCIPLINE AND WORSHIP.
The Moravian congregations in Germany are select communities of
converted Christians, ecdesiw in ecdesia, separate and distinct from the
national Churches and the vanities of the surrounding world.1 They
have a strict discipline, but they are free from gloomy asceticism, and
cherish a cheerful and trustful piety with love for music and social re-
finement. Their educational institutions attract pupils from all direc-
tions.
The form of government is a kind of Episcopal Presbyterianism,
under the supreme legislative power of synods, and an executive ad-
ministration of an elective board of bishops and elders, called the < Uni-
ty's Elders' Conference.' The bishops ordain deacons and presbyters:
they represent the whole Unitas Fratrum, are official members of the
synods, and have usually a seat in the governing boards. They claim
an unbroken succession, but lay no stress on it, and fully recognize
the validity of Presbyterian orders.
The home churches are divided into three provinces, Continental,
nier geworden, aber viete stilh oder gelrochene fferzen hatten hier eine Heimath, und der alte
Chrifttus in den Zeiten des Unglaubens ein Heiligthum.1
* The Moravian settlements in the United States were organized on the same exclusive
principle, but have recently been thrown open to other people.
878 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
British, and American. In 1857 these were declared independent in
local and provincial affairs, but they continue to be united in doctrine
and the work of foreign missions.
In worship, the Moravians combine liturgical and extemporaneous
prayer. At all the liturgical services music forms a prominent feature.
Their liturgy and hymn-book are of a superior order. They have great-
ly enriched the treasures of German hymnology, and produced also one
of the best English hymnists in James Montgomery (1771-1854:), ' the
Oowper of the nineteenth century.5 Love-feasts are held preparatory
to the communion, in imitation of the ancient Agapse. Foot-washing
was formerly practiced, but has been discontinued since the beginning
of the present century. The former use of the lot in connection with
marriage has been practically abandoned ; and in connection with the
appointment of ministers it has been restricted or is left discretional.
DOCTRINES.
The Moravians acknowledge no exclusive and compulsory symbols.
They are essentially unionistic, and seek union in harmony of spirit,
life, and worship, rather than in a logical statement of doctrine.1 Their
most authoritative creed is the Easter Litany, which dates from 1749,
and is still used annually in all Moravian churches, but as an act of
worship, not as a formula for subscription.2 They have always laid
the chief stress on the atoning death of Christ, and the personal union
of the soul with him, but more in a devotional and practical than doc-
trinal way. Christ crucified and living in them is the all in all of
their religion, their only comfort in life and death ; but they have not
formulated any particular theory of the atonement or of the unio mys-
tica. They prefer the chiaroscuro of mystery and the personal attach-
ment to Christ to all scientific theology.
Historically and nationally, they are more nearly related to the
1 Burkhardt (in Herzog, Vol. XVIII. p. 589) says : * Die Brttdergemeinde stellt nie ein dusser-
Ueh formulirtes Bekenntniss wch aussen hin auf, das sie von anderen evangel isc.hen Glauhens-
genossen trennen kdnnte. Sie wird es und kann es nie thun, denn nicht AbscUuss und Sc.hei*
dung, sondern Union ist ihr Princip. A her nur jene wahre und positive Union auf Grund
der heilige.n Schrift und der hlendigen Herzens-Erfahrung, die alkin die Herzen vereiniyt*1
Bishop Schweinitz says (Manual, p. 9 5) ; * The Renewed Church of the Brethren has no Con-
fession of Faith as such, that is, no document bearing this name/
* See the Moravian Litany in Vol. III. p. 793.
§ 108. THE MORAVIANS. 879
Lutheran denomination than to any other. They sustain to it a re-
lation similar to that which the Wesleyans sustain to the Church of
England. They professed from the start their agreement with the
Augsburg Confession. Spangenberg, the exponent of their doctrinal
system, begins the preface to his Idea Fidei Fratrum with the dec-
laration that his book is no new confession, but that the Confessio
Augustana of 1530 is and shall remain their confession.
But we should remember that this indorsement of the doctrinal ar-
ticles of the Augsburg Confession, though no doubt sincere, was partly
a matter of policy and necessity to secure toleration in Lutheran coun-
tries.1 It had no force outside of Germany and Scandinavia, and even
there no subscription to this document was ever required.2 The Mo-
ravians never adopted the other Lutheran symbols, least of all the For-
mula of Concord, which strict Lutherans regard as a legitimate devel-
opment of the Augustana. They never wished to be considered, nor
were they recognized as Lutherans, but were violently assailed by them
for their alleged doctrinal latitudinarianism and various excesses dur-
ing their early history. Even the Pietists for a period made common
cause with their orthodox enemies against the new sect, though less on
doctrinal grounds. The Moravians claim to be the legitimate descend-
ants and heirs of the Bohemian Brethren, who were closely connected
with the Waldcnses, and had their own Confessions and Catechisms be-
fore and after the Keformation. They admitted to their communion
Lutherans, Pietists, Calvinists, Anglicans, without inquiring into their
creed, if only they were devout Christians. In England they were
recognized by Parliament, with the concurrence of the bench of bish-
ops, as 'an ancient Episcopal Church' (1749), and allowed to settle in
the American colonies. They also freely associated with Wesleyans.
They were the advocates of a conservative evangelical union of three
chief types of doctrine3 — the old Moravian or Bohemian, the Lutheran,
1 After ton years' banishment from Saxony, Zinzendorf secured in 1748 recognition of his
congregation as A uysburyische Religionsverwandte (Addicti Augustance Conf.") — a title under
which the Keforraed, or Calvinists, were included in the Treaty of Westphalia.
9 Manual, p. 05 : 'This acknowledgment, according to the declaration of the General Syn-
od, docs not bind the conscience of any member, much less is it of any weight in those prov-
inces of the Unity where the Augsburg Confession has no other value than as being the creed
of one (the Lutheran) among many Churches enjoying equal rights* (Synod. Results of
1857, p. 06).
* Lehrtropen (rpdwoi Tratfctec), as Zinzendorf called them. He meant different educational
880 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
and the Reformed — living in brotherly harmony as a true unitas fro-
trum, and having their common centre in Christ. They rise above the
boundaries of nationality and sect, and represent a real catholicity or
universalism of creed with Christ as the only fundamental article. ' I
know of no other foundation,' says Zinzendorf , c but Christ, and I can
associate with all who build on this foundation.' He was at one time
even open to a project of union with the Greek and Latin Churches
and all sorts of Christian sects, but he learned that the union hero be-
low must be spiritual and inward.
It is a remarkable fact that the great German theologian, Schleier-
macher, was cradled in the Moravian community, and conceived there
his love for Christian union and personal devotion to Christ, which
guided him through the labyrinth of speculation and skepticism, and
triumphed on his death-bed. He shook almost every dogma of ortho-
doxy, and was willing, if necessary, to sacrifice all, if he could only
retain a perfect and sinless Saviour.
Zinzendorf Js theology and piety passed through a process of develop-
ment— first a sound evangelical stage (1723-174:2)3 then a period of
sickly sentimentalism (1743-1750), and, last, a period of purification
and reconstruction (1750-1760).1 These phases arc reflected in the
history of his followers. Encouraged by his own unguarded language,
in poetry and prose, about the luxurious reveling in the wounds of the
Lamb,2 and the personal intimacy with the Saviour, they ran into wild
and dangerous excesses of an overheated imagination. As is often
the case in the history of religions enthusiasm, the spirit was about
to end in the flesh.3 But Zinzendorf himself, honestly confessing his
ways of God adapted to the varieties of national and individual character. The Lutheran
type prevailed among the Moravians in Saxony, the Reformed in Holland and England.
The Moravian type furnished the historical base and a peculiar element in discipline rather
than doctrine.
1 See especially Plitt and Burkhardt.
3 Or 'Lambkin,' Lammkin, as the favorite phrase was. The side-wound was made es-
pecially prominent.
^ 3 Bishop Schweinitz thus describes this period (Moravian Manual, pp. 35 sq.) : * The rela-
tion between Christ and his Church was described in language more highly figurative, and
under images more sensuous, than any thing found even in the Song of Solomon. A mania
spread to spiritualize, especially the marriage relation, and to express holy feelings in extrav-
agant terms. Hymns abounded, treating of the passion of Jesus, apostrophizing tho wound
in his side, degrading sacred things to a level with the worst puerilities, and pouring forth
sentimental nonsense like a flood ; while services, in themselves devotional and excellent,
§ 108. THE MORAVIANS. 881
share of responsibility, recalled his followers from the abyss to the
purity and simplicity of the gospel.
The purified and matured system of the Moravians is best exhibited
in Spangenberg's Idea Fidei, which occupies a similar position among
them as Melanchthon's Loci in the Lutheran Church. It is also set
forth from time to time in the Synodical Results. The Synod of 1869
issued the following summary of such doctrines as are deemed most
essential to salvation:
' 1. The doctrine of the total depravity of human nature : that there is no health in man,
and that the fall absolutely deprived him of the divine image.
* 2. The doctrine of the love of God the Father, who has " chosen us in Christ before the
foundation of the world," and " so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. "
4 8. The doctrine of the real godhead and the real manhood of Jesus Christ : that God, the
Creator of all things, was manifested in the flesh, and has reconciled the world unto himself j
and that u he is before all things, and by him all things consist."
*4. The doctrine of the atonement and satisfaction of Jesus Christ for us: that he "was
delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification;" and that in his merits
alone we find forgiveness of sins and peace with God.
' f>. The doctrine of the Holy Ghost and the operations of his grace : that it is he who
works in us the knowledge of sin, faith in Jesus, and the witness that we are children of God.
* C. The doctrine of the fruits of faith : that faith must manifest itself as a living and ac-
tive principle, by a willing obedience to the commandments of God, prompted by love and
gratitude to him who died for us.
'In conformity with these fundamental articles of faith, the great theme of our preaching is
JESUS CmtiST, in whom we have the grace of the Lord, the love of the Father, and the com-
munion of the Holy Ghost. We regard it as the main calling of the Brethren's Church to
proclaim the LORD'S DEATH, and to point to him, "as made of God unto us wisdom, and
right eousness, and sanctification, and redemption." u
were changed into occasions for performances more in keeping with the stage of a common,
theatre than with the sanctity of the house of God. In short, fanaticism rioted among min-
isters and people, and spread from Herrnhaag and Marienborn to other churches both on the
Continent of Europe and in England. Those in America escaped, or were but slightly af-
fected. This continued for about five years, reaching its climax in 1749. It is possible that
immoralities of life may have occurred in single instances, although there are no positive
proofs of this ; the great majority of the Brethren, however, were preserved from such ex-
tremes.' Similar antinomian excesses occurred in the Moravian congregations in England
(1751), and turned Wesley and Whitefield against their old friends, whom they charged with
neglecting to preach the law either as a schoolmaster or as a rule of life, with irreverent senti-
mentalism and superstitious fopperies. See Tyerman, Life of John Wesley, Vol. II. pp. 95
sqq. (Harper's ed.).
1 Bishop Schweimtz, in M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclop. Vol. VI. p. 587. Comp. his Com-
pend of Doctrine in XVII. Articles, compiled from the authorized publication in the Mora-
man Manual, pp. 1)5-100. A popular statement is contained in the Catechism of Christian
Doctrine for the Instruction of Youth in the Church of the United Brethren, and the Epit-
ome of Christian Dor.trine for the Instruction of Candidates for Confirmation (various
editions in German and English).
882 THE CREEDS OF CHRIbTENDOM.
§ 109. METHODISM.
Literature.
I. DooTiiiNAL STANDARDS.
JOHN WESLEY (1703-1791) : Sermons on Several Occasions; and Explanatory Notes on the New Text. In
many eds., London, Bristol, New York, Cincinnati, etc. Best ed. of the Sermons by Thomas Jnckflon,
Lond. 1825, New York, 1875.
RICHARD WATSON (1781-1833): Theological Institutes: or a View of the Evidences, Doctrines, Morals,
and Institutions of Christianity. First ed. Lond. 1822-28, in 6 parts; best ed., with an Analysis by
John M'Clintock, New York, in 2 vols. (29th ed. 1875).
W. B. POPE (Theol. Tutor, Didsbury College, Manchester): A Compendium of Christian Theology:
"being Analytical Outlines of a Course of Theological Study, Biblical, Dogmatic, llitiorical London (WcB-
leyan Conference Office), 1875 (752 pp.). By the same : The Peculiarities of Methodist Doctrine. London,
1873.
D. D.WHBDON, D.D. (Ed. of the * Methodist Quarterly Review,' and of a Popular Commentary on the
New Test.) : Doctrines of Methodism. In ' Bibliotheca Sacra ' for April, 1802, pp. 241-274. Audover, Mass.
W. F. WARREN : System. Theologie. Bremen, 1865, Vol. I.
The Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 1872. Ed. by Bishop HARRIS. New
York (Nelson <fc Phillips) and Cincinnati (Hitchcock & Walden).
Catechisms of the Methodist Episcopal Church. New York (Nelson & Phillips). Especially No. 8, which
is designed ' for an advanced grade of study.7 Approved by the General Conference, 1852. Two Gor-
man Catechisms by the Rev. Dr. WILLIAM NAST, 1868.
II. OTHER SOURCES FOR THE DOCTRINES AND HISTORY OF METHODISM.
The Complete Works of JOHN WESLEY (first ed. Bristol, 1771 sqq.,iu 32 small vols. full of typographical
errors ; 3d and best ed. with the author's last corrections, ed. by Thomas Jackson, Loud. 1831, 14 vols. ;
New York, 7 vols.).
The Poetical Works of John and Charles Wesley. Ed. by G. Osborn, D.D. Lond. 187& 18 vola.
The Works of JOHN FLETCHER (Lond. 1815, 10 vols.; New York, 1S31, 4 vols.).
The Sermons and Journals of GEORGE WHITEFIELD (1756, 1771).
The Journals of Bishop ASBURY (new ed. N. Y. 1854, 3 vols.).
III. BIOGRAPHIES.
John Wesley, by COKE and MOORE (Lond. 1792); by JOHN HAMPBON (1791, 8 vols.); by ROBERT
SOTTTHBY (with Notes by Sam. T. Coleridge, 3d ed. Lond. 1846 ; Amer, ed. with Notes by Coleri<l#o> Alex.
Knox, and Daniel Curry, N. Y. 1847, 2 vols.) ; by RICHARD WATSON (Lond. 1831 ; Amer. ed. with Notes by
T. O. Summers) ; by L. TYERMAN (Lond. and New York, 1872, 3 vols.) ; ISAAC TAYT.OU : Wwley and Method-
ism (Lond. and New York, 1855) ; JAMES H. Rico: The Living Weuley as he was in MH Youth and his
Prime (Lond. 1875 ; New York ed. with Introduction by Dr. Hurst, of Drew Theol. Seminary). Comp.
Dr.Rigg's article on the Churchmanship of John Wesky, in the 'Contemporary Review' for Wept. 1876.
Charles Wesley (1708 to 1788), by THOMAS JACKSON (Lond. 1841, 2 vote.).
George WhitejMd (the founder of Calvinistic Methodism, b. 1714, d. 1770), by J. GIT,LT» (Lond. 1772,
1813); by ROBERT PHILIP (Lond. 1830; also in German, with a Preface by Tholuck, Leipz. 1884); by L.
TYERMAN (London and New York, 1877, 2 vols.; the best).
The Oxford Methodists : Memoirs of Clayton, Ingham, Qambold, Hervey, and Broughton. By L. TYBRM AN.
London and New York, 1873.
Early Methodist Preachers. Ed. by THOMAS JACKSON (Lond. 1839, 2 vols.).
IV. GENERAL HISTORIES OP METHODISM.
Dr. ABEL STEVENS (History of Methodism, New York and Lond. 1858-61, 3 vols. ; History of the Math*
odist Episcopal Church, N. Y. 1866-67, 4 vols. ; Centenary of American Methodism, N. Y. 1865) ; Dr. GKORON
SMITH (Lond. 1857-62, 3 vols. : illustrated popular edition, 1864), and a number of other works. For a
concise summary, see Stevens's art. * Methodism,1 in Johnson's ' Univera. Cyclop.' Vol. III. (1876). Also
for popular use, JAMES PORTER: The Revised Compendium of Methoditm. New York, 1S75. JAOOBY:
Oeschichte des Methodismus. Bremen, 1870.
Comp. The Wesleyan Methodist Magazine. London (Wesleyan Conference Office), 1778 to 1876 (xcix.
yols.).
The Methodist Quarterly Review. New York (Nelson & Phillips), Vols. LVIII. till 1876.
M'CLINTOOK AND STROKES CyclopcBdia (New York, 186T-81, 10 vols. (three supplementary vole, prom-
xsed), is edited by Methodists, and pays special attention to Methodist and Arminian articles.
Y. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL, CRITICAL! AND POLEMICAL.
For the anti-Methodist literature, see H. C. DEOANVER: Catalogue of Works in Refutation of Methodism
§ 109. METHODISM. 883
from its Origin, in 1729, to the Present Time,. Phila. (John Penington), 1846. Contains in aipnaDetical
order the titles of 227 books and sermons against Methodism, most of which are forgotten.
(*. OBIJOKN : Qutliw* of WesUyan Bibliography. London, ISO'.).
M. SouNKOKicNiiURGER: Lehrbegri/e der kteineren protest. Kirchenpartei&n. 1863, pp. 103-151.
Jou, JitaoBT: Amer&cantecher MetJwdismw in Deutachland und JB. Pearsall Smith. Gotha,1876. By
the same : Weeen und Berechtigung des Methodtimus. Gotha, 1876.
CHARACTER OP METHODISM.
Methodism is the most successful of all the younger offshoots of the
Reformation. In one short century it has become one of the largest
denominations in England, and the largest in the United States, with
missionary stations encircling the globe.
The founders were admirably qualified for their work, and as well
fitted together as the Reformers. John Wesley was one of the greatest
preachers and organizers, and in the abundance of his labors perhaps
the most apostolic man that England ever produced. As a revivalist
of practical religion he may be called the English Spener, as an or-
ganizer the Protestant Ignatius Loyola. His brother Charles occu-
pies, next to Watts, the first place in English hymnology, and sang
Methodism into the hearts of the people. Whitefield, the orator and
evangelist, kindled a sacred fire in two hemispheres which burns to
this day. Their common, single, and sole purpose was to convert sin-
ners from the service of Satan to the service of God, by means of
incessant preaching, praying, and working. For this end they were
willing to spend and be spent, to be ridiculed, reviled, pelted and hoot-
ed by mobs, maltreated by superiors, and driven from the church into
the street; for this they would in another age have suffered tort-
ure, mutilation, and death itself as cheerfully as the Puritans did
before thorn. The practical activity of these great and good men was
equaled only by that of the Reformers in the theoretic sphere. Dur-
ing the fifty years of his itinerant ministry, John Wesley traveled
* a quarter of a million of miles, and preached more than forty thou-
sand sermons.' * Charles Wesley composed over six thousand religious
poems,2 in the study, in the pulpit, on horseback, in bed, and in his dy-
i Tyerman, John Wesley, Vol. III. p. 6f>8 (Harper's ed.). Dr. Bigg (The Living Wesley,
Hurst's od. p. 208) remarks that Wesley rode ordinarily sixty miles a day, and not seldom
eighty and ninety miles, besides preaching twice or thrice.
a Osborn's edition contains 7600 poems of Wesley, including those of John, who com'
posed all the translations from the German.
884 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
:ng hour.1 Whitefield, besides traveling through England, Ireland, and
Scotland, made seven evangelistic voyages to America, turning the
ship into a church, and < preached in four- and- thirty years upward*
of eighteen thousand sermons, many of them to enormous crowds,
and in the teeth of brutal persecution.'2 A day before his death he
preached his last sermon of nearly two hours' length in the open
air, 'weary in the work, but not 0/the work5 of his Lord Fletcher
labored in a more restricted sphere, as Vicar of Madely, but just as
faithfully and devotedly, visiting his people and the poor ignorant
colliers early and late, in rain and snow, studying intensely, living
all the while on bread and cheese or fruit, and exhibiting an an-
gelic type of character, so that Wesley, from a personal acquaint-
ance of more than thirty years, gave him the testimony that 'he
never heard him speak an improper word or saw him do an improper
action/ and that he never knew a man 'so inwardly and outward-
ly devoted to God, so unblamable in every respect.'3 The pioneers
of American Methodism were animated by the same zeal. Bishop
Asbury, 'in the forty-five years of his American ministry, preached
about 16,500 sermons, or at least one a day, and traveled about
270,000 miles, or 6000 a year, and presided in no less than 224 an-
nual conferences, and ordained more than 4000 preachers.'* lie was
ordained bishop (1784) when the number of American Methodists fell
below 15,000, and he died (1816) when it exceeded 211,000, with
more than 700 itinerant preachers.
Methodism owes its success to this untiring zeal in preaching the
gospel of the new birth and a ' full and free salvation ? to the common
people, in churches, chapels, and the open air, and to its peculiar meth-
ods and institutions — itinerancy, missionary bishops, presiding elders,
1 When hardly able to articulate any more, he dictated to his wife these lines :
'In age and feebleness extreme,
Who shall a helpless worm redeem!
Jesus, my only hope thou art,
Strength of my failing flesh and heart;
Oh could I catch a smile from thee,
And drop into eternity I1
aTyerman,Vol.III.p.78.
3 See Wesley's Funeral Sermon on the death of John W. Fletcher, who was a French
Swiss by birth (de la Ftechifere), born at Nyon. Canton de Vand, 1729, educated at Geneva,
died at Madeley, 1785. His chief works is Checks to Antinomianism, against Calvinism.
* Stevens, Centenary of American Methodism (N. Y. 1865), p. 94.
§ 109, METHODISM. 885
lay helpers, class-meetings, camp-meetings, conferences, and systematic
collections. Methodism, as Dr. Chalmers characterized it, is * Christian-
ity in earnest.' It works powerfully upon the feelings; it inspires
preachers and members with enthusiasm ; it gives every man and wom-
an too a distinct vocation arid responsibility ; it £ keeps all at work and
always at it,' according to Wesley's motto ; it knows nothing of churches
without ministers, or ministers without charges, as long as there are
sinners to be converted in any corner of the globe. Methodism is bet-
ter organized than any other Protestant denomination, and resembles
in this respect the Church of Rome and its great monastic orders. It
is a powerful rival of that Church. It has an efficient machinery with
an abundance of steam, and is admirably adapted for pioneer work in
a new country like America. It is a well-disciplined army of conquest,
though not so good an army of occupation, since it allows so many * to
fall away from grace,' not only temporarily, but even ' totally and final-
ly.' Till 1872 the laity was excluded from participation in Church
government (and is so still in England), but was compensated by a
jarge liberty in the sphere of worship, in class-meetings, band-meetings,
i>ve-feasts, which tend to develop the social and emotional element in
religion.
METHODISM AND PUBITANISM.
Methodism forms the third great wave of the Evangelical Protest-
ant movement in England, and represents the idea of revival. The
Reformation destroyed the power of the papacy. Puritanism aimed
at a more thorough Reformation in Church and State, and controlled
for a time the civil and religious life of the nation. Methodism kept
aloof from politics, and confined itself to the sphere of practical re-
ligion. Puritanism was animated by the genius of Calvinism ; Meth-
odism, in its main current, by the genius of Arminianism. Both made
a deep and lasting impression upon the national Church from which
they proceeded, and moulded the character of American Christianity.
The Methodist revival checked the progress of skepticism and infidelity
which had begun to set in with deism. It brought the life and light
of the gospel to the most neglected classes of society.
If evangelical Christianity to-day has a stronger hold on the Anglo-
Saxon race in both hemispheres than on any other nation, it is chiefly
due to the influence of Puritanism and Methodism.
886 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
RELATION TO THE OHUBOH OF ENGLAND.
Methodism is a daughter of the Church of England, and was nursed
in the same University of Oxford which, a century later, gave rise to
the Tractarian school in the opposite direction towards Rome, The
'Holy Club' of the fourteen Oxford students associated for prayer,
holy living, and working, began, like Dr. Pusey and his friends, with a
revival of earnest, ascetic, and ritualistic High-Churchism, and received
the name c Methodists' for its punctual and methodical habits of de-
votion. Wesley was at first so exclusive an Episcopalian that he
shrank from street-preaching and lay-preaching, and, at least on one
occasion, even rebaptized Dissenters. But his contact with the sim-
ple-hearted, trustful, and happy German Moravians (Peter Bolder,
Mtschmann, and Spangenberg) whom he met on his voyage across
the Atlantic, in the Colony of Georgia, and after his return, led to his
second c conversion,' which took place May 24, 1738, and imparted to
his piety a cheerfully evangelical and, we may say, a liberal Broad-
Church character.1
He now entered upon his independent evangelistic career, yet with
no idea of forming a separate denomination. His object was simply
to revive experimental piety within the limits of the Anglican Church,
as Spener and Francke had done before within the Lutheran Confes-
sion in Germany. Although badly treated by bishops and other clergy,
he had no quarrel with the authorities in Church or State, but only
with sin and Satan. His aim was to build the city of God and to save
souls within the establishment, if possible ; without it, if necessary. IIo
1 'At the first,' says Dr. Bigg (• Contemporary Beview' for 1876, pp. 656 sq.), 'with
Wesley faith had meant the intellectual acceptance of the creeds, together with the submis-
sion of the will to the laws and services of the Church Until he met with Bohler, he hud
not embraced, scarcely, it would seem, had conceived the idea of faith as being, in its main
element, personal trust and self-surrender, as having for its central object the atonement of
Jesus Christ, and as inspired and sustained by the supernatural aid and concurrence of tho
Holy Spirit. , . . Wesley confessed that Bohler's teaching was true gospel teaching. , . . Here
ended his High-Church stage of life. Here began his work as an evangelist and Church re-
vivalist. All dates from his final acceptance of Bohler's teaching as to the nature of faith.*
Dr. Stevens ways (Centenary, p. 31 ) : < Methodism is indebted to Morarianism for not only Home
of the most important features of its moral discipline, but for the personal conversion of both
the Wesleys.' But Wesley was converted before as much so as Luther was when he entered
the convent of Erfurt several years before he experienced his second or evangelical conver-
sion to the doctrine of justification by faith alone. On the other hand, some of tho Oxford
Tractarians were converted over again, or backward, when they joined the Church of Home.
§ 109. METHODISM. 887
performed indeed some uncanonical acts which led ultimately to seces-
sion, but he did it from necessity, not from choice. He never made
common cause with Dissenters. He lived and died in the Church of
his fathers. His brother Charles was even more conservative, and
took great offense at his violation of the canons.
Had the Church of England been as wise and politic as the Church
of Rome, she would have encouraged and utilized the great revival
of the eighteenth century for the spread of vital Christianity at home
and abroad, and might have made the Wesleyan society an advocate
of her own interests as powerful as the order of the Jesuits is of the
Papacy. Now, after a century of marvelous success, the founder of
Methodism is better appreciated, and has been assigned (1876) a place
of honor among England's mighty dead in Westminster Abbey.
The English Wesleyans continue to hold a middle position between
the Established Church and the Dissenters proper, but tend latterly
more to JFree-Ohurchism.
AMERICAN METHODISM.
In the United States the Methodists were made an independent
organization with an episcopal form of government by Wesley's own
act. As a Tory and a believer in political non-resistance, he at first
wrote against the American ' rebellion,' but accepted the providential
result; and, considering himself as a * Scriptural Episcopos,' he or-
dairied, on the second day of September, 1784, two presbyters (Richard
Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey) and one superintendent or bishop, viz.,
the Rev. Thomas Coke, LL.D. (a presbyter of the Church of England),
for his American mission, which then embraced 83 traveling preachers
and 14r,98S members.1 This was a bold and an irregular act, but a
master-stroke of policy, justified by necessity and abundant success.2
1 The first Methodist society in America was formed in 1766, in the city of New York,
among a few Irish emigrants, by Philip Embury, a local preacher, and by his cousin, Mrs. Bar-
bara Heck, a true ' mother in Israel.' Hence Methodism celebrated its centenary in 1866 with
great festivities.
3 He also ordained a few presbyters for Scotland and England to assist him in administer-
ing the sacraments, on the plea that the regular clergy often refused to admit his people to
the Lord's table. At the Conference of 1 788 he consecrated (according to Samuel Bradburn's
statement) one of his preachers as a superintendent or bishop. He had long before been
convinced by Stillingfleet's * Irenicon' and Lord King's * Primitive Church* that bishops and
presbyters were originally one order, and that diocesan episcopacy was not founded on divine
V()L. I. — L L L
§88 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Bishop Coke, assisted by the Rev. P. W. Otterbein, of the (format
Eeformed Church, ordained, according to "Wesley's direction, Francis
Asbury to the office of joint superintendent^ and twelve others to the
office of presbyters, at the first General Conference held in Baltimore
(Dec. 27, 1784). These were the first Protestant bishops in America,
with the exception of Dr. Samuel Seabury, who was consecrated a few
weeks before (Nov. 14, 1784), at Aberdeen, as bishop of the Protestant
Episcopal diocese in Connecticut1 In a short time the society, thus
fully organized, overtook older denominations, and kept pace with the
rapid progress of the young republic.
The separation from the mother Church of England was complete,
but her blood still flows in the veins of Methodism and shows itself
in a half-way assent to her doctrinal standards (as far as they admit
of an Arminian interpretation), to her liturgy (as far as it does not
encourage sacerdotalism and ritualism or interfere with the freedom
of worship), and to her episcopacy (as based upon expediency, and
not on the divine right of succession).
BRANCHES OF METHODISM.
The Methodist Christians in England and America are divided into
a number of distinct ecclesiastical organizations — the 'Wesloyans,'
the ' Methodist Episcopal Church,' the c Primitive Methodists,' the
'Primitive Wesleyans of Ireland,' the 'Bandroom Methodists,' the
4 Methodist Protestant Church,' the* Welsh Calvirristie Methodists,' the
'Free Methodist Church,' the 'African (Bethel and Zion) Methodist
Episcopal Church,' etc. To the Methodist family belong also the
' Evangelical Association ' (or * Albright's Brethren,' so called from
Jacob Albright, a Pennsylvania German, who founded this society in
1800), and the 'United Brethren in Christ' (founded by Philip William
Otterbein, a German Reformed minister, d. in Baltimore, 1813).
The great parent body, however, are the WESLEYANS in England
right. In a letter to his brother Charles (1785) he calls the uninterrupted episcopal succes-
sion 'a fable which no man ever did or can prove.' — Rigg, 1. c. p. 669. For a full discussion
of Wesley's ordination acts, see Stevens, History of Methodism, Vol. II. pp. 209 sqq., and
Tyerman, John Wesley, Vol. III. pp. 426 sqq.
4 Bishop White, of Pennsylvania, was not consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury
until Feb. 4, 1787, the consecration being delayed and nearly frustrated by certain impedi-
ments,.
§ 109. METHODISM.
889
and the METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH in the United States. They
far outnumber all the other branches put together. The Methodist
Episcopal Church was divided in 1844 on the question of slavery into
4 the Methodist Episcopal Church' (North), and 'the Methodist Epis-
copal Church, South,' but measures have been inaugurated (1876)
for reuniting them. Similar schisms for the same cause -rent other
Churches before the civil war, but have been healed or will be healed,
since the war has removed the difficulty. The Eoman Catholic, and
next to it the Protestant Episcopal Church, owing to their conserva-
tism, were least affected by the disturbing question of slavery, and
remained intact.
The differences between the various branches of Methodism refer
to the episcopate, the relative powers of the bishops and the general
conference, lay representation, and other matters of government and
discipline which do not come within the scope of this work. The doc-
trinal creed is the same in all, with the exception of the Whitefieldian
Methodists, who are Calvinists, while all the rest are Arminians.
Nom— The Cyclopaedia of M'Clintock and Strong, Vol. VI. p. 159, gives the following
list of Methodist denominations, with the date of their organization and estimate of their
ministers and church members in 1872:
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.
Denomination.
Date of
Organization.
Number of
Ministers.
Number of
Church
Members.
Wenleyan Methodists ...
1789
8,157
557,995
WolHh OalviniHtlc Methodists
(1745)
207
58,577
1797
260
85,706
Primitive MethodiHts ,
1810
943
161,229
Primitive (Ireland) Methodists
1816
85
14,247
Bible Christians
1815
254
26,241
United Methodist Free Churches » . . .
1828-49
312
68,062
Wewleyan Reform Union .'
1849
20
9,303
Totals
5,238
931,450
AMERICA.
Denomination.
Date of
Organization.
Number of
Ministers.
Number of
Church
Members.
1784
1866
1800
1800
1816
1819
1828
1854 f
1823
1830
1848
1844
1860
10,742
624
*632
600
694
'iir
228
423
about 250
2,858
about 90
about 20
1,458,441
75,000
TSJfii
20,000
164,000
69,597
16,118
21,103
60,000
20,000
600,900
6,000
2,000
Evangelical Association (Albrights)
African Methodist Episcopal (Zion)
Methodist Episcopal Church of Canada.
Methodist Episcopal Church South (in 1871)*
Primitive Methodists
Totals
17,308
2,591,875
* Thin doe* not include the colored membership now separately organized as the Colored Methodist Epitcopal Church, South.
890 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
§ 110. METHODIST CREEDS.
The American Methodists have three classes of doctrinal standards «
1. The Twenty-five Articles of Religion.1 They were prepared by
John Wesley, from the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England
(together with an abridgment of the Book of Common Prayer), for
the American Methodists, and were adopted by the Conference in Bal-
timore, 1784, with the exception of Article XXIII., which recognizes
the United States as c a sovereign and independent nation/ and which
was adopted in 1804. These articles are now unalterably fixed, and
can neither be revoked nor changed.2
2. John Wesley's Sermons and Notes on the New Testament. They
are legally binding only on the British Wesleyans, but they are in fact
as highly esteemed and as much used by American Methodists, and
constitute the life of the denomination. When eighty-one years of age
(Feb. 28, 1784), Wesley, in his famous Deed of Declaration, which is
called the Magna Charta of Methodism, bequeathed the property and
government of all his chapels in the United Kingdom (then 359 in
number) to the ' Legal Hundred,' i. e., a conference of one hundred
of his traveling preachers and their successors, on condition that they
should accept as their basis of doctrine his Notes on the New Testa-
ment and the four volumes of Sermons which had been published by
Mm or in his name in or before 1771.3 These sermons are fifty-eight
in number, and cover the common faith and duties of Christians,4 but
contain at the same time the doctrines which constitute the distinctive
creed of Methodism.6 The Notes on the New Testament are for the
most part a popular version of Bengel's Gnomon.
1 See Vol. III. pp. 766 sqcj, Comp. also Emory, History of the Discipline, ch. i. § 2 ;
Comfort, Exposition of the Articles (New York, 1847) ; Jimeson, Notes on the Twenty-Jive
Articles (Cincinnati, 1853).
a ' The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change our Articles of Religion, nor
establish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present existing and estab-
lished standards of doctrine.' This article can not be amended (Discipline, p. #1). The
General Conference is the highest of the five judicatories, and the only legislative body of
the Methodist Episcopal Church.
3 Tyerman, Vol. III. pp. 417 sqq.
* Thirteen discourses are on the Sermon on the Mount, chiefly ethical; two are funeral
discourses (on the death of Whitefield and Fletcher) ; one on the cause and cure of earth-
quakes ; one on the use of money.
6 On Salvation by Faith; Scriptural Christianity; Original Sinj Justification by Faith;
§ 110. METHODIST CREEDS. 891
3. The Book of Discipline and several Catechisms, one published in
1852, another in 1868 (by Dr. Nast), are at least secondary standards
for the American Methodists.
The distinctive features of the Methodist creed are not logically for-
mulated, like those of the Lutheran and Eeformed Churches. It allows
a liberal margin for further theological development. John Wesley,
though himself an able logician and dialectician, sought Christianity
more in practical principles and sanctified affections than in orthodox
formulas, and laid greater stress on the oecumenical consensus which
unites than on the sectarian dissensus which divides the Christians.
The General Rules, or recognized terms of membership, for the origina1
Methodist ' societies' (not churches), are ethical and practical, and con-
tain not a single article of doctrine. They require ca desire to flee
the wrath to come and be saved from sin,5 and to avoid certain spe-
cific vices.
Nevertheless Methodists claim to have more doctrinal harmony
than many denominations which impose a minute creed. There is a
Methodist system of doctrine and a Methodist theology, however elas-
tic they may be. But there is a difference of opinion among their
standard writers as to the degree of originality and completeness
of this system and its relation to other confessions. We may dis-
tinguish an American and an English view on the subject.
An ingenious attempt has recently been made to raise the Methodist
creed to the importance and dignity of a fourth confession or symbolical
system alongside of the Eoman Catholic, the Lutheran, and the Cal-
vinistic, and far above them. According to Dr. Warren, Catholicism
makes salvation dependent upon a meritorious co-operation of man
with God, and is essentially pagan ; Calvinism makes salvation depend
exclusively on the eternal decree and free grace of God, and views
Christianity from the stand-point of the Old Testament ; Lutheranism
derives salvation from the personal relation of man to the means of
grace (the Word and Sacraments), and views Christianity from the
stand-point of justification by faith alone ; Methodism makes salvation
exclusively dependent upon man's own free relation to the illuminating,
renewing, and sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit, and represents
Free Grace ; the Witness of the Spirit (three sermons) ; on Christian Perfection. It is singu-
lar there is not one sermon on the Freedom of the Will.
892 THB CREEDS OF CHKISTENDOM.
the stand-point of Christian perfection. Calvin retains the Christians
under the dispensation of the Father, Luther under the dispensation
of the Son, Wesley leads them into the dispensation of the Spirit. The
first confines salvation to the favorite number of the elect ; the second
binds it to the baptismal font, the altar, and the pulpit ; the third offers
it freely to all Calvin's ideal Christian is a servant of God, Luther's
a child of God, Wesley's a perfect man in the full stature of Christ.1
English Methodists claim for their system a humbler position, and
represent it, in accordance with the intention of the founders, as a lib-
eral evangelical modification of the Anglican creed, with some orig-
inal doctrines to which they attach great importance.3
1 Syst. Theol. Vol. I. pp. 90, 99, 119, 140, 149, 166. Dr. Warren (who is now President
of the Methodist University in Boston) wrote this able book (which is as yet, 187(5, unfinished)
while in Germany, and under the stimulus of the generalizing theories of some German
divines. Zinzendorf had made a somewhat similar distinction between the Lutheran, Re-
formed, and Moravian types of doctrine (Lehrtropeii), but comprehended them all in his
brotherhood. James Martineau, from the Unitarian point of view, represents Luther, Culviu,
and Wesley as the representatives of the orthodox gospel in three dialects (Studies of Chris-
tianity, London, 1873, pp. 399 sq.).
a Professor William B. Pope, of Didsbury College, Manchester, one of the loading We* .
leyan divines, makes the following statement concerning the creed of the English Metho-
dists (in the Introduction to his translation of Winer's Comparative View of the X)oo,trin?$
and Confessions of the various Communities of Christendom, Edinb. 1873, pp. Ixxvi.-lxxviii.):
'It may be said that English Methodism has no distinct articles of faith. At the same time
it is undoubtedly true that no community in Christendom is more effectually hedged about
by confessional obligations and restraints. Reference has been made to the distinction of
creeds, confessions, and standards. Methodism combines the three in its doctrinal consti-
tution after a manner on the whole peculiar to itself. Materially if not formally, virtually
if not actually, implicitly if not avowedly, its theology is bound by the ancient oecumenical
Creeds, by the Articles of the English Church, and by comprehensive standards of its own,
the peculiarity of its maintenance of these respectively having been determined by the specific
circumstances of its origin and consolidation-— circumstances with which it is not our business
here to enter. In common with most Christian Churches it holds fast the Catholic Symbols ; the
Apostolical and Nicene are extensively used in the Liturgy, and the Athanasian, not so used,
is accepted so far as concerns its doctrinal type. The doctrine of the Articles of the Church
of England is the doctrine of Methodism. This assertion must, of course, be taken broadly,
as subject to many qualifications. For instance, the Connection has never avowed the Arti-
cles as its Confession of Faith ; some of those Articles have no meaning for it in its present
constitution ; others of them are tolerated in their vague and doubtful bearing, rather than
accepted as definitions ; and, finally, many Methodists would prefer to disown any relation to
them of any kind. Still the verdict of the historical theologian, who takes a comprehensive
view of the estate of Christendom, in regard to the history and development of Christian truth,
would locate the Methodist community under the Thirty-nine Articles. He would draw his
inference from the posture towards them of the early founders of the system j and ho would
not fail to mark that the American branch of the family, which has spread simultaneously
with its European branch, has retained the Articles of the English Church, with some neces-
sary modifications, as the basis of its Confession of Faith. Setting aside the Articles that have
§ 111. ANALYSIS OF ARMINIAN METHODISM. 393
§ 111. ANALYSIS OF AEMINIAN METHODISM.
THE SEMI-ANGLICAN DOCTRINES.
The Twenty-five Articles represent the doctrines which Methodism
holds in common with other evangelical Churches, especially with the
Church of England. They are an abridgment of the Thirty-nine Ar-
ticles of Keligion, with a view to simplify and to liberalize them.
Wesley omitted the political articles, which apply only to England,
and those articles which are strongly Augustinian, especially Article
17, of Predestination (which teaches unconditional election to salvation
and the perseverance of the elect), Art. 13, of Works before Justifica-
tion (which are said to have the nature of sin), and Art. 8 (which
indorses the three Creeds). On the other hand, Art. 10, of Free Will,
to do with discipline rather than doctrine, the Methodists universally hold the remainder as
tenaciously as any of those who sign them, and with as much consistency as the great mass
of English divines who have given them an Armmian interpretation. That is to say, where
they diverge in doctrine from the Westminster Confession, Methodism holds to them; while
this Confession rather expresses their views on Presbyterian Church government. It may
suffice to say generally on this subject, that so far as concerns the present volume [of Winer],
every quotation from the English Articles may stand, if justly interpreted, as a representative
of the Methodist Confession.
* Finally, we have the Methodist Standards, belonging to it as a society within a Church,
which entirely regulate the faith of the community, but are binding only upon its ministers.
Those Standards are to be found in certain rather extensive theological writings which have
none of the features of a Confession of Faith, and are never subscribed or accepted as such.
More particularly, they are some Sermons and Expository Notes of John Wesley ; more gen-
erally, those and other writings, catechisms, and early precedents of doctrinal definition; taken
as a whole, they indicate a standard of experimental and practical theology to which the
teaching and preaching of its ministers are universally conformed. What that standard
prescribes in detail it would be impossible to define here. . . . Suffice that the Methodist
doctrine Is whnt is generally termed Armmian, as it regards the relation of the human race
to redemption ; that it lays great stress upon the personal assurance which seals the personal
religion of the believer; and that it includes a strong testimony to the office of *he Holy
Spirit 5n the entire renewal of the soul in holiness, as one of the provisions of the covenant
of grace upon earth. It may be added, though only as an historical fact, that a rigorous
maintenance of this common standard of evangelical doctrine has been attended by the pres-
ervation of a remarkable unity of doctrine throughout this large communion/
])r. Wheclon, the editor of the * Methodist Quarterly Review,' in a notice of Pope's Winer
(October No., 1873, pp. 680 sqq.), enters Miis firm, fraternal protest against being recorded
before the eyes of the world as training under the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of
England, 'and says, *The entire body of Methodists of the United States no more hold the
Thirty-nine Articles, doctrinally, than they do the Westminster Confession. They reject a
large share of both for the same reason, namely, that they are, in their proper interpretation,
Calvinistic. Nor does this Confession express their views on Presbyterian Church govern-
ment ; for the Confession affirms the divine obligation of Presbyterianism, and the large
body of American Methodists believe in the right of a voluntary episcopacy.'
THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
which teaches (with Augustine, Luther, and Calvin) the natural inabil-
ity of man to do good works without the grace of God, is literally re-
tained (Meth. Art 8).
Minor doctrinal changes were made in Art. 2 (Art. 2), where the
clauses < begotten from everlasting of the Father/ and * of her [the
Virgin's] substance/ are omitted (either as doubtful or lying outside
of a creed) ; l in Art 9 (7), where the last clauses, which affirm the con-
tinuance of original sin in the regenerate, are left out (as inconsistent
with Wesley's view of perfection) ; in Art. 16 (12), where « sin after
justification' is substituted for 'sin after baptism' (to avoid the doc-
trine of baptismal regeneration) ; in Art. 25 (16), of the Sacraments,
where the words * sure witnesses and effectual,' before ' signs of grace,'
are stricken out (which betrays a lowering of the doctrine of the Sacra-
ments) ; in Art. 34 (22), where c traditions of the Church' are changed
into ' Rites and Ceremonies.'
These omissions and changes are significant, and entirely consistent
with Methodism, but they are negative rather than positive. Wesley
eliminated the latent Calvinism from the Thirty-nine Articles, but did
not put in his Arminianism, nor his peculiar doctrines of the Witness
of the Spirit and Christian Perfection, leaving them to be derived
from other documents of his own composition.
THE ARMINIAN DOCTRINES.
The five points in which Arminius differed from the Calvinistic sys-
tem are clearly and prominently brought out in Wesley's writings,
though mostly in the form of popular and practical exposition and ex-
hortation. He put the name of Arminius on his periodical organ, and
struck the keynote to the Arminian tone of Methodist preaching. The
Arminian features of Methodism are, freedom of the will (taken in the
sense of liberum arbitrium, or power of contrary choice) as necessary
to responsibility ; self -limitation of divine sovereignty in its exercise
1 Emory, in his History of the Discipline, inserts the clause, ' begotten of everlasting from
the Father,' as adopted in 1784, but omitted in 1786 and in later editions, perhaps by typo-
graphical error. A Methodist correspondent (Rev. D. A. Whedon) suggests to me that
Wesley may have made a distinction between the eternal Sonship and the eternal Generation,
and may have maintained the former, but questioned the latter as referring to the manner
rather than the fact. Prof. Pope, the latest Methodist writer on Dogmatics, avoids this
question as belonging to the transcendental mysteries (Christ. Theol p. 272).
§ 111. ANALYSIS OF ARMlNIAN METHODISM. 895
and dealings with free agents ; foreknowledge as preceding and con-
ditioning foreordination ; universality of redemption ; resistibility of
divine grace ; possibility of total and final apostasy from the state of
regeneration and sanctification.
Calvinism and Methodism agree in teaching man's salvation by God's
free grace, in opposition to Pelagianism and Semipelagianism. But
Calvinism traces salvation to the eternal purpose of God, and confines
it to the elect ; Methodism makes it dependent on man's free accept-
ance of that grace which is offered alike to all and on the same terms.
Calvinism emphasizes the divine side, Methodism the human.1 Herein
Methodism entirely agrees with Arminianism, and is even more em-
phatically opposed to the doctrines of absolute predestination, limited
atonement, and the perseverance of saints than Arminius was, who left
the last point undecided.
Wesley began the thunder against the imaginary horrors and blasphe-
mies of Calvinism which has since resounded from innumerable Meth-
odist pulpits. He defines predestination to be ' an eternal, unchange-
able, irresistible decree of God, by virtue of which one part of man-
kind are infallibly saved, and the rest infallibly damned; it being
impossible that any of the former should be damned, or that any -of
the latter should be saved ;' and then he goes on to show that this doc-
trine makes all preaching useless; that it makes void the ordinance
of God ; that it tends directly to destroy holiness, meekness, and love,
the comfort and happiness of religion, zeal for good works, and the
whole Christian revelation ; that it turns God into a hypocrite and de-
ceiver ; that it overturns his justice, mercy, and truth, and represents
him ' as worse than the devil, more false, more cruel, and more unjust.5
* This,' he says, * is the blasphemy clearly contained in the horrible de-
1 Dr. Warren, 1. c. p. 140, states the difference in an extreme form, which would sub-
ject Methodism to the charge of downright Pelagianism : 'Nach der Methodlstischen Auf-
fassung des Heilsverhaltnisses Gottes und des Menschen hangt das Heil oder Nicht-Heil eines
jeden Menschen kdiglich von seinem eigenen freien Verhalten gegenuber den erleuchtenden,
erneuernden und heiligenden Minwirkungen des heiligen Geistes ab. Verhalt man sich gegen-
tiber diesen JSinwirkungen empftitnglich, so wird man hier, und einst dort, selig werden ; ver-
schliesst man sein Herz gegen dieselben, so wird man hier, und auf ewig im Tode verbleiben.
Mit dieser Grundanschauung hangen alle sonstigen EigenthumlicJikeiten des Methodismus, wie
a, B. seine eigenthumUc.he Freiheitshhre, seine Betonung der Wirksamkeit des heiligen Geistes,
seine Lehre von der christlichen VoUkommenheit, und dergleichen, eng zusammen. Seinem in-
nersten Geist und Wesen nach ist er eine Auffassung des C/iristenthums vom StandpunkU der
christlichen Vollkommenheit oder der vSlligen Liebe.'
896 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
cree of predestination, and for this I abhor it (however I love the per-
sons who assert it).' To this decree he sets over the other decree, c I
will set before the sons of men life and death, blessing and cursing;
and the soul that chooseth life shall live, as the soul that ehoosoth
death shall die.' The elect are all those who ' suffer Christ to make
them alive.31
The vehemence of this opposition to the doctrine of predestination
must be explained in part from the subjective and emotional nature
of Methodist piety, which exposes it much more to an antinommu
abuse of this doctrine than is the case with the calm intellectual
tendency of Calvinism.
On the other hand, however, the ' evangelical' Arminianisrn of Wes-
ley, as it is called, differs from the Dutch Anninianism, as developed
by Episcopius and Limborch, and inclines as much towards Augustin-
ianism as Arminianism inclines towards Pelagianism. In this respect
it resembles somewhat the Lutheran anthropology of the .Formula of
Concord, though it differs altogether from its christology and sacra-
meritalism.
* Sermon liv., on Free Grace (Rom. viii. 32), preached at Bristol It follows immediately-
after the eulogistic funeral discourse on the Calvinistic Whitefield. His brother Charles
wrote a polemical poem on *The Horrible Decree,' in which his poetic genius left him, as
may be inferred from the following specimens :
'0 Horrible Pecree,
Worthy of whence it came 1
Forgive their hellish blasphemy,
Who charge it on the Lamb.'
'To limit Thee they dare,
Blaspheme Thee to Thy face,
Deny their fellow-worms a share
In Thy redeeming grace.'
In another poem, on 'Predestination,' he prays:
increase (if that can he)
The perfect hate I feel
To Satan's HOBIHBUS BEORBB,
That genuine child of hell;
Which feigns thee to pass by
The most of Adam's race,
And leave them in their blood to die,
Shut out from saving grace.'
How infinitely superior to these polemical effusions is his genuine hymn:
'Jesus, lover of my eoul,'
which a Calvinist may sing as heartily as a pious Methodist will join in his antagonist's (Totx
lady's) : r
'Bock of Ages, cleft for me.f
§ 111. ANALYSIS OF AEMINIAN METHODISM. 897
1. Methodism holds a much stronger view of original sin than Armin-
ianism, and regards it not simply as a disease or weakness,1 but as a total
depravity that unfits man altogether for co-operation with the grace of
(iod towards conversion. Wesley, Fletcher, and Watson describe this
natural corruption in consequence of Adam's fall in the darkest col-
ors, almost surpassing the descriptions of Augustine, Luther, and Cal-
vin ; but they deny the personal responsibility of Adam's posterity for
his fall or the doctrine of original guilt ; and herein they agree with
the Arminians and the Quakers.
2. Methodism teaches the freedom of will as a gift of prevenient
grace, which is given to every man as a check and antidote to original
sin ; while Arminianism, with its milder view of the fall, allows man
a certain freedom of will in a weakened state as an inherent and in-
herited power of nature.
3. Methodism lays greater stress on the subjective experience of
conversion and regeneration. Its preaching is essentially radical evan-
gelistic revival preaching, which rouses the sinner to a sense of his
danger, and the paramount necessity of an immediate, sudden, and
radical change of heart and life.
THE ORIGINAL DOCTRINES OF METHODISM.
To these modifications of Arminianism must be added a few doc-
trines which Methodism claims as its own contributions to the better
understanding of the Christian system.
1. The doctrine of the universality of divine grace, not only in its
intention, but in its actual offer. Herein Methodism resembles the
Quaker doctrine of tiniversal light. It is assumed — on the ground of
Paul's parallel between the first and second Adam (Rom. v.) — that all
men are born into an order of saving grace, as well as into an order
of sin. Adam brought a universal seed of death, but Christ brought a
universal seed of life, which is available for all who do not reject it.2
1 Kpiscopius calls the peccatwn originis an infirmitas or calamitas or malum, but not a
malum ow/pre and malum pcsnce. Limborch calls it malum naturale, not peccatum nostri re-
$pectu. See Winer, Comp. Syinb. pp. 60 sqq.
* 'No man living,' says Wesley, 'is without some preventing grace, and every degree of
grace is a degree of life. There is a measure of free will supernaturally restored to every
man, together with that supernatural light which enlightens every man that cometh into
this world.' 'That by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men (all born into the
world) unto condemnation, is an undoubted truth, and affects every infant as well a* every
398 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
For by virtue of the universal atonement, man, though born in sin, is
held guiltless until he arrives at the point of personal responsibility.
While Romanism and Lutheranism save those only who are brought
into contact with the Church and the Sacraments, Calvinism those only
who are elect from eternity, Methodism brings the opportunity of sal-
vation to all men in this present life, though in different forms and do*
grees, so that they are actually saved if they do not incur the guilt of
rejecting salvation by unbelief. Hence all children are saved if they die
before they commit actual sin. Though born in sin, they are not held
guilty before the age of responsible agency. They are saved by the
same power of the universal atonement which saves adults ; though
there is a difference of opinion as to the regeneration of infants before
death.1 On the same ground all heathen may be saved who do not
neglect their opportunities. Ability and opportunity are the measure
adalt person. But it is equally true that by the righteousness of One, the free gift came upon
all men (all born into the world— infants and adults) unto justification.' I). J). Wliodon
(Bibtioth. /Sacra, 1862, p. 258.): 'Under the redemptive system, the man is born into the
world, from Adam, a depraved being. It is as a depraved being that he becomes an Kgo.
But instantly after, in the order of nature, he is met by the provisions of atonement. ' * Every
human being,' says Warren, 'has a measure of grace (unless he has cast it away), and those
who faithfully use this intrusted gift will be accepted of God in the day of judgment, whether
Jew or Greek, Christian or heathen. In virtue of Christ's mediation between God and the
fallen race, all men since the first promise, Gen iii. 15, are under an economy of grace, and
the only difference between them as subjects of the moral government of God is that, while
all have grace and light enough to attain salvation, some, over and above this, have more and
others less' (Vol. I. pp. 146 sq.). Pope (pp. 239-248) distinguishes this doctrine from the
Augustinian, Pelagian, fctemipelagian, Tridentine, Lutheran, Calvinistic, and Arminhin, and
says that there is no doctrine which * so irresistibly and universally appeals for its confirma-
tion to the common conscience and judgment of mankind.'
1 Dr. D. D. Whedon (Biblioth. Sacra, 1862, p. 258) remarks on this point : ' That the dying
infant is saved, and saved by the atonement, we all agree. But his precise condition, as
affected by the atonement, while a living infant, seems to be a somewhat undecided matter.
Probably a large majority of the Methodist Episcopal Church have, for some time past, held,
without much discussion, that the living infant was both unjustified and unregenerate, and
yet upon his death he obtained both blessings. This making death the condition of justifica-
tion and regeneration appears to many hardly logical, and not without danger. Mr. Wesley's
earlier expressions of opinion indicated a holding of the churchly doctrine of baptismal re-
generation in infancy. His later indications of opinion indicate that he held all infants to be
members of the kingdom of heaven ; and he also held that regeneration is a condition to
membership in the kingdom of heaven ; but he does not expressly draw the inference that
«11 infants are regenerate. Fletcher maintained the doctrine both of infant justification and
regeneration. Dr. Fisk held to infant justification. Our baptismal service first declares, in
its Scripture lesson of infants, that " of such is the kingdom of God," and yet declares "that
none can enter into the kingdom of God unless he be regenerate." But neither here is the
inference expressly drawn. The subject is a matter of calm discussion, and perhaps the
number of those holding the doctrine of infant regeneration has decidedly increased.'
§ 111. ANALYSIS OF AEMINIAN METHODISM. 899
of responsibility, and G-od requires no more from man than he empow*
ers him to perform. Christ's atonement covers the deficiency of abil-
ity in the case of infants, and the deficiency of opportunity in the case
of the heathen.
Fletcher distinguishes three dispensations in this general economy of
grace : the dispensation of the Father, embracing the heathen and Mo-
hammedans, who know God only from his general revelation in nature,
providence, and the conscience ; the dispensation of the Son, for those
who live within the limits of Christendom and the reach of the gospel ;
and the dispensation of the Holy Spirit, for those who have an experi-
mental knowledge of the regenerating and sanctifying Spirit. Wes-
ley, Watson, and Pope teach essentially the same view of the univer-
sality of grace.
2. The next distinctive doctrine of Methodism is the Witness of the
Spirit or the assurance of salvation (Eom. viii. 15, 16). It is a double
and concurrent witness of God's Spirit and of our spirit concerning
our justification. The former is objective and divine, and antecedes ;
the latter is subjective and human, and follows. The Holy Spirit
bears testimony to our spirit that by faith we are the children of God.
This testimony is immediate and direct, and follows the work of justifi-
cation and regeneration. On the ground of this testimony the believer
feels assured of his present acceptance with God, and has a hope of his
final salvation, but he is at the same time guarded against carnal se-
curity by the fear of a total and final fall from grace. Hence there
are so many backsliders, who constitute a special class among Meth-
odists.1
1 Comp. the three sermons of Wesley on the Witness of the Spirit (x.-xii), Vol. I. pp. 85
sqq, lie traced this doctrine to his contact with some Moravians on his voyage to Georgia
(1785), whose childlike trust and serene cheerfulness led him to exclaim: 'I, who went to
America to convert others, was never myself converted to God/ He meant conversion from
legal bondage to evangelical freedom and a sense of assurance of pardon. He subsequently
visited Count Zinssendorf and the Moravians in Germany to study their discipline (1739).
Watson (Vol. II. p. 271) distinguishes four views on the testimony of the Spirit, and thus
states his own, which agrees with Wesley's: 'It is twofold; a direct testimony or "inward
impression on the soul, whereby the Spirit of God witnesses to my spirit that I am a child
of God ; that Christ hath loved me, and given himself for me, that I, even I, am reconciled
to God " (Wesley's Sermons) ; and an indirect testimony, arising from the work of the Spirit
in the heart and life, which St. Paul calls the testimony of our own spirit; for this is inferred
from his expression, "And the Spirit beareth witness with our spirit, etc." This testimony
of our own spirit, or indirect testimony of the Holy Spirit by and through our own spirit, is
900 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Herein the Methodist doctrine differs from the Calvinistic doctrine
of assurance which is based, not on subjective feeling, but on the
divine promises and the unchangeable decree of God's election, and
which covers not only the present state, but the whole process to its
final completion, conditioned by the perseverance of saints as the
final test of genuine conversion.1
3. The last and crowning doctrine of Methodism, in which the
Quakers likewise preceded it, is Perfectionism. It is regarded as
a mighty stimulus to progressive holiness, and forms the counterpart
of the doctrine of apostasy, which acts as a warning against backslid-
ing. It is derived from such passages as Matt. v. 48; Phil. Hi. 15;
Heb. vi. 1 ; x. 14 ; 1 John iii. 6 ; v. 18. Methodist perfection is not a
sinless perfection or faultlessness, which Wesley denied,3 but a sort of
imperfect perfection, from which it is possible to fall again tempo-
rarily or forever.3 It is entire sanctification or perfect love (1 John ii.
5 ; iv. 12), which every Christian may and ought to attain in this present
life. From this state all voluntary transgressions or sinful volitions
are excluded, though involuntary infirmities may and do remain ; in
this state all the normal qualities are possessed and enjoyed in their
fullness. As to the attainment of perfection, it comes according to the
prevailing view from gradual growth in grace, according to others by
a special act of faith.4
considered confirmatory of the first testimony. ' Pope (p. 465) : ' Assurance is the fruit, not
the essence of faith. . . . Perfect faith must be assured of its object. . . . The internal assur-
ance of faith is a privilege that all may claim and expect; seasons of darkness and depression
and uncertainty are only the trial of that faith of assurance. '
1 The Westminster Confession, Ch. XVIII., says that true believers *may in this life
be certainly assured that they are in a state of grace, and may rejoice in hope of the
glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.' This assurance is * founded
upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the testimony of the Spirit witnessing with
our spirit that we are the children of God.' It is not of * the essence of faith,' and may bo
* shaken, diminished, and intermitted,' yet revived again in due time and keep us from utter
despair.
a In his sermons on Temptation, Vol. II. p. 215, and on Perfection, Vol. I. p. 850; Vol. II.
p. 168 : 'The highest perfection,' he says, * which man can attain while the soul dwells in the
body, does not exclude ignorance and error and a thousand infirmities.*
a Meth. Catech. No. 3, p. 37 : * It is the privilege of every believer to be wholly sanctified,
and to love God with all his heart in the present life ; but at every stage of Chriatick expe-
rience there is danger of falling from grace, which danger is to be guarded against by watch-
fulness, prayer, and a life of faith in the Son of God.'
* "Wesley has two sermons on Christian Perfection, one on Phil. iii. 1 2 (VoL I. p. 356), and
one on Heb. vi. 1 (Vol. IL p. 167). He distinguishes, (1) angelic, (2) Adamic, (3) absolute
$ ill CALVINIStflC METHODISM. 901
§ 112. CALVINISTIO METHODISM.
WHITEFIELD.
George Whitefield labored with Wesley until 1741, when they parted
on the question of predestination and free will ; the former taking the
Oalviniatic, the latter, with his brother and the majority of Methodists,
the Arminian side, and henceforth they pursued different paths, like Paul
and Barnabas. Personally they became cordial friends again, and their
friendship continued until death. This should not be forgotten when
we read the bitter predestinariau controversy which their friends and
followers carried on and renewed from time to time. When Whitefield
heard of the dangerous illness of Wesley, who had already written his
own epitaph, he sent him an affectionate letter (Dec. 3, 1753), saying, <I
pity myself and the Church, but not you. A radiant throne awaits you,
and ere long you will enter into your Master's joy.n When Whitefield
died in Newburyport (Sept. 30, 1770), Wesley preached his funeral ser-
mon (Nov. 18) at Whitefield's Chapel in Tottenham Court Road and at
the Tabernacle, near Moorfields, on the text Numb, xxiii. 10, 'Let me die
the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his V Without
alluding to their temporary separation, he speaks of him in the highest
terms as an eminent instrument of God, who in the business of salvation
put Christ as high as possible, and man as low as possible, and who
brought a larger number of sinners from darkness to the light than any
other man. lie praises his < unparalleled zeal, his indefatigable activity,
his tenderness of heart towards the afflicted, and charitableness to the
perfection— all of which he denies to man in his present state — and (4) the relative perfec-
tion, which ho claims for him under the gospel dispensation, namely, perfect love to God.
From I John iii. 0 and v. 1ft, he reasons, ' A Christian is so far perfect as not to commit
am ' (Vol. T. p. 805). He affirms that several persons have enjoyed this blessing of freedom
from Bin without interruption for many years, and not a few unto their death, as they have
declared with their last breath (Vol. II. p. 174). Pope says (p. 527): 'The Spirit is im-
parted in this fullness for the perfect consecration of the soul to the Triune God : this is
called the lovo of God perfected in us. The commandment requires from us in return the
perfect love of the soul to God and man ; and this perfection, promised to faith working by
love, JH abundantly attested as the possible and attained experience of Christians.1 Pope
distinguishes the Methodist theory of perfection from the ascetic, the fanatical, the Pelagian,
the mystical, the Uomanist, the imputationist (modern Calvinistic), and the Arminian (p. 535);
and he mentions five characteristic marks of the Methodist doctrine, the chief of which is
entire consecration to God in perfect love (p. 540).
1 Bee the whole letter in Tyerman, J. Wesley, Vol. II. p. 175.
CRJSEDS OF CHBlSTfiNDOM.
poor, his deep gratitude, his most generous and tender friendship, his
modesty, frankness, patience, courage, and steadfastness to the end.3 1
Whitefield was free from sectarian spirit and cared little for organi-
zation. His sole purpose was to convert sinners to Christ, and to re-
vive Churches to new zeal and energy.2 His labors were crowned with
signal success. The day of judgment alone will reveal the number of
his converts, and the amount of good which he kindled by his flaming
sermons among Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and
other denominations, as well as among the crowds of ungodly people
who were attracted by his eloquence.3
But although most of his converts fell in with existing denomina-
tions, a considerable number of them formed three separate organiza-
tions. One of them, called 'the Whitefield Methodists/ were lost
among the Independents. The other two still remain.
THE COUNTESS OF HTJNTINGPON's CONNECTION.
Selina, Countess of Huntingdon (1707-1791), a lady of true nobility
of heart and intellect as well as rank, devoted, after the death of her
husband and four children, her time and fortune to the spread of vital
religion among the nobility and the court as well as the common peo-
ple. She purchased halls and theatres in London, Bristol, and Dublin,
built over sixty chapels, supported ministers, founded a college at
Trevecca, in Wales, and stirred up others to similar liberality. She
dispensed with her luxurious equipage and sold even her jewels for
the benefit of this work. She took Whitefield, with whose Calvin-
ism she sympathized, under her special patronage, and made him her
chaplain, and exercised a sort of leadership over his congregations.
1 Sermon LIIL Vol. I. pp. 470 sqq.
a In this unselfish zeal he has a worthy successor in our day in Mr. Moody.
3 * Whitefield's preaching was such as England never heard before— theatrical, extrava-
gant, often commonplace, but hushing all criticism by its intense reality, its earnestness of
belief, its deep, tremulous sympathy with the sin and sorrow of mankind. It was no common
enthusiast who could wring gold from the close-fisted Franklin and admiration from the
fastidious Horace Walpole, or who could look down from the top of a green knoll at Kings-
wood on twenty thousand colliers, grimy from the Bristol coal-pits, and see as he preached
the tears "making white channels down their blackened cheeks."'— Green, History of the
English People, p. 718 (Engl. ed.). Dr. Abel Stevens, an Arminian Methodist, calls White-
field *the most eloquent, the most flaming preacher that the Christian Church has known
since its apostolic age, whose eloquence sanctified, wakened the whole British empire' (Cen-
tenary ofAmer. Methodism, p. 24).
§ 112. CALVtNJUSTlC METHODISM.
Hence they became known as the * Countess of (or Lady) Hunting-
don's Connection.
Whiteflcld bequeathed to the Countess his benevolent institutions
and lands in Georgia, and this resulted in a mission to America.
The ministers of this connection are almost identical in doctrine and
Church polity with the Independents, but in public worship they use to
some extent the Anglican Liturgy. Their principal institution is Ches-
unt College, in Herts.
THE WELSH OALVINISTIO METHODISTS.
Literature.
The ffistory, Constitution, Rules of Discipline, and Confession of Faith of the Calvinistic Methodists in
Wales. Drawn up by their own Associated Ministers. Third ed. Mold, 1840.
JOHW HUGHES : History of Welsh Methodism (in Welsh). Liverpool, 1856, 3 vole.
WILLIAM WILLIAMS: Welsh Calvintetic Methodism. An Historical Sketch (in English). London, 18T2.
Whitefield's preaching through Wales, and the kindred labors of
Howell Harris, of Trevecca, Griffith Jones, Daniel Rowlands, Howell
Davies, and William Williams — most of them clergymen of the Estab-
lished Church who joined the Methodists — produced a powerful and
extensive revival, and resulted in a new connection in 1743, and more
fully in 1785, when the Rev. Thomas Charles, of Bala, one of the most
zealous and useful preachers of his day, joined it.1
For many years the Welsh Methodists existed without a settled
form of go\ eminent or doctrinal confession.
IB 1823 it was unanimously agreed at the Associations of Aberyst-
with and Bala to issue in the Welsh language such a document, to-
gether with a sketch of the origin and early history of the denomina-
tion. An English edition was published in 1827.
The Confession of Faith consists of forty-four chapters, and accords
substantially in spirit and arrangement with the Westminster Confes-
sion, though it is far inferior to it in ability and accuracy.
The articles in which it differs from the Wesleyan scheme are Arts.
V., XII., and XXXIV., which are as follows :
1 Charles graduated at Oxford as A.B. in 1778, labored seven years as a clergyman of the
Established Church, united himself with the Calvinistic Methodists in 1785, and drew up in
1700 a aeries of Rules for conducting Associations or Quarterly Meetings. He was one of
the founders of the British and Foreign Bible Society.
VOL. I. — M M M
904 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
V.— Of the Decree of God.
God, from eternity, according to the counsel of his own will, and for the manifestation
and exaltation of his glorious attributes, decreed all things which he should perform in time
and to eternity, in the creation and governing of his creatures, and in the salvation of sinners
of the human race; yet in such a manner that he is neither the Author of sin, nor does he
force the will of his creatures in the fulfillment of his decree; and this decree of God is not
depended on any thing in a creature, nor yet on the foreknowledge of God; but rather God
knows that such and such circumstances will take place, because he has ordained that it
should be so. God's decree is infinitely wise, perfectly righteous, and existing from eternity ;
it is a free, an ample, a secret, gracious, holy, good, an unchangeable and effectual decree.
XIL—Ofthe Election of Grace.
God from eternity elected and ordained Christ to be a Covenant Head, a Mediator, and a
Surety to his Church ; to redeem and to save it. God also elected in Christ a countless mul-
titude out of every tribe, tongue, people, and nation, to holiness and everlasting life ; and
every means were employed to effect this purpose most securely. This election it) eternal,
righteous, sovereign, unconditional, peculiar or personal, and unchangeable. It wrongs
none, though God has justly left some without being elected, yet he has not wronged them :
they are in the same condition as if there had been, no election; and had there been no elec-
tion, no flesh had been saved.
XXXIV.— Of Perseverance in Grace.
Those whom God has made acceptable in the Beloved, whom he has effectually called, and
whom the Spirit sanctifies, can not completely and forever fall from a state of grace, but
they shall assuredly be supported unto the end, and they shall be saved. Their perseverance
depends not on their own will, but on the unchangeableness of the purpose of God, the elec-
tion of grace, the power of the Father's love, the sufficiency of the propitiation of Christ, the
success of his intercession, union, with him, the indwelling of the Spirit within them, the seed
of God implanted in their souls, the nature and strength of the covenant, and tho promise
and oath of God. Founded on these things, perseverance is certain and unfailing. Though
they may, through the temptations of Satan and the world, the great power of their indwell-
ing corruption, and the neglect of using the means for their support, fall into sins, and re-
main in them for some time, and thus displease God, grieve the Holy Spirit, injure their
grace, lose their comfort, harden their hearts, sting their consciences, draw a temporal judg-
ment upon themselves, harm others, and disgrace the cause of God, yet they shall be kept
by the power of God through faith to salvation, though their Ms will be felt most bitterly by
them.
Those who continue to live quietly in sin, and comfort themselves that they are in a gracious
state, show evident signs that they are self-deceivers. For by perseverance in grace is not
meant the continuing to enjoy and to inherit external Gospel privileges merely ; but a con-
tinuance in holiness, diligence, watchfulness, a holy temper and walk, and a scrupulous ob-
servance of every duty. There is nothing more opposed to sin than a perseverance in grace ;
and whosoever shall thus continue in grace to the end shall be saved.
§ 113. T11K CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH (CALLED IRVINGITES), 905
§ 113. THE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH (CALLED IRVINGITES).
Literature.
I. SOURCES.
EDWARD IKVINQ: Works, collected and edited by his nephew, the Rev. G. Carlyle. London, 1864-65,
5 vol«.
MIOUAICL HOIIL: Uruchstucke aus dem Leben und den Schriften B. Irving' s. St. Galleu,1839; 2d ed,
1860,
Mr«. M. O. W. OUIMJANT: The Life of Edward Irving, Minister of the National Scotch Church, London,
illmtmted by his Journals and Correspondence. London and New York (Harpers), 1862.
A Testimony to the King of England, and anotlier to the Bishops of England. London, 1836. (Anony-
mous. Prepared by the Apostles.)
A Testimony addressed to all Patriarchs, Archbishops, and Bishops, and the Reigning Sovereigns of Chris-
tendom. 1887. (Anonymous.)
Liturgy and other Divine Offices of the Church. London, 1842. Brawn up by tbe * Apostles,' and
enlarged from time to time.
0. M. CARftfc : The first and Last Days of the Church of Christ. London, 1851.
Headings upon the Liturgy. (By one of the Apostles.) London, 1852.
The Catechism. (The English Episcopal Catechism enlarged.)
TUOMAB CAULYUC (one of the Apostles) : The Door of Hope for Britain, and The Door of Hope for Chris-
tendom. London, 1853. By the same : Apostles Given, Lost, Restored : Pleadings with my Mother.
Rev. WILLIAM Dow (one of the Apostles, originally a Scotch Presbyt.) : First Principles of the Doc-
trine of Christ, Edinb. 1856. By the same: A Series of Discourses on Practical and Doctrinal Subjects,
Edinb. 1853 ; 2d aeries, Edlnb. 1860.
Rev. J. 8. DAVKNPORT : Edward Irving and the Catholic Apostolic Church. New York, 1863. By the
same: Christian Unity and its Recovery. New York, 1866. By the same: Letter to BisJiop WhiUhouse:
The Church and the Episcopate. Montreal, 1873.
W. W. ANDBICWH: The True Constitution of the Church and its Restoration. New York, 1854. By the
same : Review of Mrs, OliphanPs Life of B. Irving, in the 'New-Englander* for July and Oct. 1863. By
the same: The Catholic Apostolic Church, its History, Organization, Doctrine, and Worship, in the 'Bib-
Hothect Sacra* for Jan. and April, 1866. Andover, Mass. By the same : The True Marks of the Church.
Hartford, 186T.
Rev. NICHOLAS ARMSTRONG (one of the Apostles) : Sermons on Various Subjects. 2d ed. London, 1870.
By the name : Homilies on the Epistles and Gospels. London, 1870.
Rev. T. GiiosttR: Sermonti, 1st and 2d series. London, 1871 and 1874.
Apostles1 Doctrine and Fellowship. Anonymous. London, 1871.
The l*urpose of God in Creation and Redemption. Anonymous. 4th ed. Edinburgh, 1874.
Readings for the Sundays and Uolydays of the Church's Year. Anonymous. London, 1875.
The Dispensation of the Parousia. Hartford, 1876.
Various writings of HENRY DRUMMOND (one of the Apostles), CIIAB. Bonn, C. ROTHE, A. KOPPKN,
EiiN6T GAAD, KOBBTAUSOURR (author of an essay 'On the Gift of Tongues,' and a history of the move-
ment under the title Der Aufbau der Kirche Christi aufden ursprSnglichen Grundlagen), and especially
II, W. J, Tnuuksou (the Tertulliau of this modern Montanism, and its most learned minister in Germany,
who wrote Lectures on Catholicism and Protestantism, 1848, on the Canon of the N. T*, 1845, on the Church
in the Apostolic Age, 1852, and other excellent works).
II. CRITICISMS.
D» QUINORY, in Literary Reminiscences, Vol. II.
THOMAS CABLYLK, in 'Eraser's Magazine1 for Jan. 1835.
Articles on Irving In 'Edinburgh Review' for Oct. 1862; 'North British Review' for Aug. 1862;
'Blackwood's Magazine' for Nov. 1858, and June, 1862; 'London Quarterly Review' for Oct. 1862;
1 Methodist Quarterly Review,' Jan. 1849, 1863.
PHILIP SOITAFFJ Der Irvingismus und die Kirchenfrage, in his 'Dentscher Kirchenfreund,' Jahrg. III.
1850, pp. 40 sqq. 81 sqq. 161 sqq. 223 eqq. Mercersburg, Pa.
G. W, LKHMANP • Ueoer die Irvingianer. Hamburg, 1858.
Comp. J. L. JAOOBI : Die Lehre der Irvingiten oder der sogenannten apostolischen Gemeinde verglichen
mit der heiligen Schrift. Berlin, 1868.
EDWARD IRVING.
Edward Irving, the herald and pioneer of the < Catholic Apostolic
Church,' was born at Annan, in Scotland, 1792, and died in the vigor
906 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
of manhood at Glasgow, Dec. 8, 1834, where he lies buried in the
crypt of the cathedral. He belonged to the Presbyterian Church,
and for several years (1819-1822) labored in Glasgow as the assist-
ant of the great and good Dr. Chalmers.
In 1822 he accepted a call to the Caledonian Chapel, Ilatton Gar-
den, London, and at once became the most powerful and popular
preacher of the metropolis. He was at that time overflowing with
bodily and spiritual life and energy. He excelled in the noblest
gifts of eloquence, cultivated on the models of Hooker and Jeremy
Taylor. Lofty thoughts clothed in gorgeous, semi-poetic language,
devotional fervor, a solemn manner, a sonorous voice, a quaint an-
tique style, a broad Scotch accent, an imposing figure, bushy hair
flowing down in ringlets, a beaming face (which reminded Sir Walter
Scott of that of the Saviour on Italian pictures), all combined to at-
tract large and intelligent audiences, and to secure their closest atten-
tion, as if they listened to a messenger from the presence of the great
Jehovah. De Quincey judged him to be, more than any man he ever
saw/ a son of thunder, and unquestionably by many degrees the great-
est orator of our times.' He attracted people from all classes — noble-
men, statesmen, and authors. When on a visit to Edinburgh and
Glasgow, he roused the population at sunrise from their beds to bear
his discourses. He shook the kingdom with his eloquence.
While lie ruled like a monarch from his pulpit, he was a docile pupil
of Coleridge, and received from the suggestive conversations of the
old sage seeds of truth which seriously modified Ms Scotch Calvinistic
creed. He now made more account of the incarnation and the true
humanity of Christ, maintaining that he assumed our fallen, i. e.,
temptable, mortal, corruptible nature, yet without sin itself, into com-
plete fellowship with his divine person. This exposed him to the
charge of denying the sinlessness of our Saviour, which was far from
his thoughts. He also gave a large place to the hope of the glorious
return of Christ, and the revival of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit
in the Church.
In these views he was greatly strengthened by the sudden reap-
pearance of what he believed to be the supernatural gifts of tongues,
prophesying, and healing. These manifestations first occurred in the
spring of 1830 in the west of Scotland, on the shores of the Clyde,
§ i la. mis CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHufcctt (CALLED raviNGiTES). 907
among some pious Presbyterian men and women, who believed that
their organs of speech were made use of by the Spirit of God for the
utterance of his thoughts and intentions. Several persons from Lon-
don, on hearing of these things, visited Scotland, and, on their return,
held prayer-meetings in private houses, attended by devout members
of different denominations. They united in supplications for the
restoration of spiritual gifts. In April, 1831, the same manifesta-
tions took place among members of the Church of England and
friends of Irving in London. The c prophesyings ' were addressed to
the audience in intelligible English, and resembled the solemn exhorta-
tions of Quakers moved by the Spirit. The speaking in tongues con-
sisted of soliloquies of the speaker, or dialogues between him and God
which no one could understand. The burden of the prophetic utter-
ances was the judgments impending on the apostate Church, the speedy
coming of Christ, and the duty of preparing his way.1
Similar manifestations of ecstatic utterances in seasons of powerful
religious excitement appeared among the Montanists in the second
century, the persecuted Protestants in France, called the * Prophets of
Cevonnes,5 and among the early Quakers.
These extraordinary proceedings naturally led to a rupture between
Irving and the Presbytery of London (1832). He was turned out of
the church built for him in Regent Square, and ultimately deposed
from the ministry of the Church of Scotland by the Presbytery of
Annan (1833), from which he had received his first license to preach.
On being driven from Eegent Square, he was followed by the larger
part of his congregation to Newman Street ; and the following year,
when his Presbyterian orders had been taken from him, he humbly
submitted to reordination by one whom he received as an apostle.
He never rose beyond the position of an c angel,' or pastor, in the new
Church, and, after less than two years of great labors and sufferings,
passed from this world of trial into the regions of light.
1 See A Brief Account of a Visit to some of the Brethren in the West of Scotland, London,
1 HJJ ) (J. Nisbet) ; ROBERT BAXTER (first a believer in the divine origin and then in the sa-
tanic origin of these gifts): Narrative of Facts characteristic of the Supernatural Manifesta-
tions in Members of Mr. Irving 's Congregation and other Individuals, in England and Scotland,
and formerly in the Writer himself, Lond. (Nisbit), 1833 ; HOHL, 1. c. (quoted in my Hist, of
the ApofsL Ch. § 55, p. 108). Comp. also Stanley, Comment, on the Epp. to the Corinthians,
4th ed. London, 187C, pp. 250 sqq.
- THE CREEDS OP CHRISTENDOM.
He is little mentioned in the writings of his followers, and is re
garded by them merely as a forerunner or John the Baptist, not as
the founder of their community. His brilliant meteoric career, lofty
character, and sad end created profound interest and sympathy. Dr.
Chalmers, on hearing of his death, said that ' he was one in whom the
graces of the humble Christian were joined to the virtues of the old
Eoman.' Thomas Carlyle, his countryman and early friend, thus char-
acterizes Irving: 'He was appointed a Christian priest, and strove with
.the whole force that was in him to be it. I call him, upon the whole,
the best man I have ever, after trial enough, found in this world, or
now hope to find.51
THE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC OHTJROH.
This remarkable man, whose purity and piety can be as little doubt-
ed as his genius and eloquence, whatever may be thought of his sound-
ness and judgment, gave the strongest if not the first impulse to the
religious movement which, since its organization, is usually called
after his name, but which calls itself 'Tine CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC
CHURCH.' 2 It took full shape and form after his death, as it claims,
under supernatural direction. It is one of the unsolved enigmas of
Church history : it combines a high order of piety and humility of in-
dividual members with astounding assumptions, which, if well found-
ed, would require the submission of all Christendom to the authority
of its inspired apostles.
1 When he adds, ' Oh foulest Circean draught, thou poison of popular applause! madness
is in thee, and death ; thy end is Bedlam and the grave/ he seems to cast a reflection on
Irving's character which is not justified by facts ; for Mrs. Oliphant's Life, shows him to have
willingly sacrificed popularity to his convictions.
3 ' They do not lay claim to the name Catholic Apostolic as exclusively their own, but they
use it as a proper designation of the one body of Christ, of which they are an organic part,
and they refuse to be called by any other. They do this on the ground that it is wrong to
affix to the Church the name of an eminent leader, like Luther or Calvin or Wesley ; or
one founded upon some feature of Church polity, such as Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Con-
gregational; or one derived from some peculiar doctrine or rite, as Baptist or 3Free-will
Baptist; or one expressing geographical limitations, such as Koman, Greek, Anglican, or
Moravian. The essential characteristic of a thing should be expressed by its name, and the
Church has for its three chief features, Unity, as the only organism of which Christ is head y
Catholicity, as having a universal mission; and Apostolicity, as sent by Christ into the world,
even as he was sent by the Father. It is a significant fact that this name, adopted in the
Nicene Creed, has practically every where been changed, as into the Eoman Catholic, the
Greek Orthodox, the Protestant Episcopal, or something still narrower and more sectarian.'
— W. W. Andrews, in Biblioth. Sacra, 1. c.
§ 113. THE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH (CALLED IRVINGITES). 909
The modern * Apostolic' Church believes and teaches that the Lord,
who will soon appear in glory, has graciously restored, or at least
begun to restore his one true Church, by reviving the primitive super-
natural offices and gifts, which formed the bridal outfit of the apostolic
age, but were soon afterwards lost or marred by the ingratitude and
unbelief of Christendom. It claims to have apostles, prophets, and
evangelists for the general care of the Church, and angels (or bish-
ops), presbyters (or priests), and deacons for the care of particular con-
gregations. All officers are called by the Holy Ghost through the
voice of the prophets, except the deacons, who are chosen by the con-
gregation as its representatives. They form a more complete hierarchy
than that of the Episcopal or even the Greek and Roman Churches,
whose bishops never claimed to be inspired apostles, but only succes-
sors of the apostles.
If the twelve modern apostles were truly called by Christ and en-
dowed with all the powers and functions of that unique office, men
will naturally look for sufficient evidence of the fact. But nine of
these apostles died before 1876, and their vacancies have not been
filled, nor are they expected to be filled. The Church, then, is re-
lapsing into the same destitute condition which, according to their own
theory, preceded this movement.1 Their only hope is in the speedy
return of our Lord.
To this apostolic hierarchy corresponds a highly ritualistic worship,
with a solemn liturgy, based upon the Anglican and ancient Greek
liturgies, and with an elaborate symbolism, derived from a fanciful in-
terpretation of the Jewish tabernacle as a type of the worship of the
Christian Glmrch in the wilderness.
In this hierarchical constitution and ritualistic worship consists the
chief peculiarity of this community. Its ministers and members
have accordingly a very high idea of the Church and of the Sacra-
ments. They are strict believers in baptismal regeneration and the
real presence, though neither in the Roman nor the Lutheran sense.
1 From a conversation with a learned minister of that Church, to whom I mentioned this
difficulty, I infer that he at least— I do not know how many more — regards its testimony as
a partial failure, or merely as a temporary provision, to be superseded by a better one. An-
other writes to me in answer to the same question: *We are quite ready to admit failure,
groat failure, so far as to the present effects of the movement upon Christendom. But in-
trinsicatty^ and in relation to God's plans, we do not think it a failure.'
910 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
They reject transubstantiation and consubstantiation as well as the
merely symbolical presence, and hold to the spiritual real presence of
Calvin, but combine with it the view of Irenseus and other early fa-
thers, that the elements, after being consecrated by the invocation of
the Holy Ghost, have a heavenly and spiritual, as well as a material
character, and are antitypes of the body and blood of Christ. They
regard the eueharist as the centre of Christian worship, and not only
as a sacrament, but also as a sacrifice in the patristic sense of a thank-
offering, and they connect with it a commemoration of the departed.
They are, upon the whole, the highest of High-Churchmen. They are
in this respect the very antipodes of the Plymouth Brethren, the low-
est of Low-Churchmen and the most independent of Independents,
although both agree in their antagonism to the historical Churches
and their expectation of the speedy coming of the Lord.
Yet, on the other hand, the Irvingites are unquestionably Protestant,
and accept the positive results of the Reformation. They reject the
Pope, not indeed as the Antichrist or 'the man of sin,' who will be re-
vealed in the last times as the outgrowth of unbelief and lawlessness,
but as an antichristian usurper of supreme authority in the Church-
In their general belief they are as orthodox as any other denomination.
They receive the whole Scriptures with devout reverence as their su-
preme guide. They lay stress on the oecumenical creeds, and embody
them in their liturgical services. In catechetical instruction they use the
Anglican Catechism, with an additional part inculcating their peculiar
views about the constitution and order of the Christian Church. They
manifest a catholic spirit, and sustain, as individuals, fraternal relations
with members of other denominations. Upon the whole, they have
most sympathy with the Episcopal Church, from which they received
the majority of their original members. Of their apostles, eight were
Anglicans (including two clergymen and two members of Parliament),
three Presbyterians, and one Independent. Their main strength is
in London, where they have seven churches, after the model of the
seven churches in Asia Minor. They have also congregations in many
of the principal cities in England and Scotland, and in some parts of
the Continent of Europe, especially North Germany ; while in Roman
Catholic countries and in America they have made little or no progress.
The Irvingite movement has directed the attention of many serious
§ 113. THE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH (CALLED IRVINGITES). 9H
minds to a deeper study of the supernatural order and outfit of the
Apostolic Church, the divisions and reunion of Christendom, and the
eschatological questions connected with the second advent
STATEMENT OF THE REV. W. W. ANDREWS.
With these remarks we introduce a fuller inside account of tlie
Catholic Apostolic Church, which was kindly prepared for this work
by the Rev. W. W. ANDREWS, of Wethersfield, Conn. He has been
thoroughly acquainted with the movement from the beginning, and
is highly esteemed by all who know him as a Christian gentleman and
scholar :
* The body of Christians who call themselves by the name of the CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC
CHURCH, not as exclusively their own, but because it is the proper designation of the one
Catholic Church, is distinguished from all other Christian communions by the claim to the
possession of gifts and ministries which, after having been long lost or suspended in their
exercise, they believe to be now again restored to prepare the way for the coming and king-
dom of the Lord.
History.
* The history of this religious movement can be given in few words. About the beginning
of the second quarter of the present century, there was much prayer in many countries, but
especially in Great Britain, for the outpouring of the Holy Ghost ; and early in the year
1 8!U) supernatural manifestations occurred in several parts of Scotland, in devout members
of the Presbyterian Church, in the form of tongues, prophesvings, and healings. The fol-
lowing yenr similar manifestations took place in London, first in members of the Church of
Kngland, and afterwards among other religious bodies.
* Towards the end of the year 1832, by which time the supernatural character and divine
origin of these spiritual phenomena had been abundantly attested, and a considerable number
of persons had become believers, another and most important step was taken in the restora-
tion of the apostolic office. The will of God that certain men should serve him as apostles
was made known through supernatural utterances of the Holy Ghost by prophets, as when,
at Antioch, ho said, " Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work wherennto I have called
them." Tho apostolate to the Gentiles, begun in the calling of Paul, but then left unfinished,
the Lord now, at the end of the dispensation, set his hand to restore ; and by the middle of
the year 18M5 the full number wns completed, and they entered as a twelvefold Apostolic
College on the work of caring for the whole Christian Church. As Great Britain had been
chosen of God to be the centre of this catholic movement, one of the first duties laid upon
the restored apostles was the preparing of a Testimony to the Bishops of the Church of Eng-
land and Ireland, and of another to the King's Privy Council, in which they pointed out the
sins and perils of those lands, and testified to the coming of the Lord as the only hope of
mankind, and to the work of the Holy Ghost as the necessary means of preparation.
* A year or two Inter, they addressed a more full and complete testimony, of the same gen-
oral character, to all the Rulers in Church and State throughout Christendom. They did
this, because it was their duty, from the nature of their office, to seek the blessing of the
whole flock of God. Apostles alone have universal jurisdiction, as they alone receive their
commission directly from the Lord; and it belonged to them, when restored towards the close
of the long history of the Church, to take up those questions in respect to doctrine, organiza-
tion, and worship which had broken the unity of Christendom ; and having examined the
912 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
creeds and rites and usages of every part, to separate the evil from the good, and to stamp
with their apostolic authority every fragment of divine truth and order which had been pro-
served. This they have been doing for more than forty years, and the results to which they
have arrived may be thus briefly stated.
Doctrines.
'They hold the holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (the Old Testament as re-
ceived from the Jews, without the Apocrypha) to contain the sum and substance of all divine
revelations, and therefore to be the supreme and infallible standard of doctrine.
' But they also believe that Christ's promise to be with his Church to the end of the world
has not been made void, and that the Holy Spirit has borne a living witness to the one faith
in all generations ; and they have adopted the three great creeds commonly called the Apos-
tles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian, as expressing more clearly than any others the belief
of the Universal Church. The great doctrines of the holy Trinity, the incarnation, the atoning
death and bodily resurrection of the Lord, his ascension and high priestly work in heaven, the
descent of the Holy Ghost to draw men to Christ, and to regenerate, sanctify, and endow with
heavenly gifts them that believe, together with the second personal coming of the Lord to
judge the quick and the dead, and to administer eternal retributions, they hold in their plain
and obvious import, in harmony with the whole Orthodox Church, Greek, Roman, and Prot-
estant.
* These creeds they have appointed to be used in divine worship : the Apostles1, at the daily
morning and evening services ; the Nicene, in the ordinary celebrations of the eueharist on the
Lord's Day ; and the Athanasian, four times in the year, at the great festivals of Christmas,
Easter, Pentecost, and All-Saints, They use the Nicene Creed in the form in which the
Western Church receives it, retaining the Filioque, but not condemning the Eastern Church
for using it in the form in which it was left by the Council of Constantinople.
' In respect to the great central truth of the incarnation, the key to all the purposes and
works of God, they teach that the second Person in the adorable Godhead, the only and
eternally begotten Son, became man by assuming our entire humanity — body, soul, and spirit
— under the conditions of the fall, but without sin, through the overshadowing of the Holy
Ghost. They reject, therefore, the dogma of the immaculate conception of the mother of the
Lord as against the truth of holy Scripture, which declares the whole human race to have
been involved in the fall of the first Adam. They teach that by being born of a mother of the
fallen race, he took the common nature of man, with all its infirmities, burdens, and liabili-
ties, so that he could be tempted in all points like as we are, and be dealt with in all things
by the Father as the representative of mankind. But they also make prominent the work of
the Holy Ghost in effecting the incarnation, holding that it was through his presence and
power that the Son of God was conceived of the Virgin Mary, and afterwards anointed for
his public ministry ; so that while it was a divine person who became incarnate, he had no
advantage of his Godhead in his earthly life, but did every thing as man upheld, guided, and
energized by the Holy Ghost.
* They hold, with the Church of England, and all the great leaders of the Reformation, that
the death of the Lord Jesus Christ was " a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and
satisfaction for the sins of the whole world" (and not merely for those of the elect) ; and on
this ground they stand aloof both from the rationalism which denies its vicarious and expiatory
nature, and from the Roman doctrine of the mass, which teaches that the sacrifice of the
cross needs to be supplemented by the sacrifices of the eucharist, in which the Lamb of God
is continually immolated afresh.
'But they go beyond the theology of the Reformation in respect to the Church, which they
look upon as the fruit of the death and resurrection of Christ, and of the descent of the Holy
Ghost which followed his ascension ; and as differing, therefore, fundamentally in its spirit-
ual essence and prerogatives from all the companies of the faithful in the preceding dispensa-
tions. They believe that in rising from the dead he became the fountain of a new life, the
head of a redeemed humanity, of which those who believe in him are made partakers by the
§ 1 13. THE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH (CALLED IEVINGITES). 913
operations of the Holy Ghost working in and through the ordinances of his Church. The
Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the divinely appointed means of conveying
and nourishing this new life of his resurrection, by the implanting and energizing of which
the whole multitude of the faithful are made to be the One Body of Christ.
* As to the structure and endowments of the Church, they hold that its original constitu-
tion contains the abiding law for all generations. The fourfold ministry of apostles, proph-
ets, evangelists, and pastors, first fulfilled by the Lord himself when upon earth, was con-
tinued in his Church after he had gone into heaven, because it was the necessary instrumen-
tality of conveying his manifold grace and blessing, and of bringing his Body to the stature
of his fullness (Kph. iv. 11-16). The Holy Ghost was given to be the permanent possession
of his people ; and the apostles reject the common distinction between ordinary and extraor-
dinary gifts as wholly unscriptural, and as restraining the manifestations of the Spirit. They
lay great stress upon the connection of the descent of the Comforter with the glorifying of the
Lord Jesus (John vii. 89), and teach that the object of his mission was to reveal the glory and
manifest the energies of the Man whom God had exalted from the weakness and dishonor of
the grave to his own right hand. Supernatural gifts and miraculous workings are therefore
in accordance with the nature of the dispensation, which began with the resurrection of the
Lord, and is to end with the resurrection of his saints.
Worship.
* Its chief features are the celebration of the Eucharist on every Lord's day; services at six
in the morning and five in. the evening of every day in the year, requiring for their complete
fulfillment the three ministries of angel, priests, and deacons; the observance of the great
feasts of the Church, excluding those in honor of particular saints; and a monthly service by
the seven churches in London gathered into one as a symbol of the Universal Church, which
in nlno observed in all the congregations throughout the world.
* The holy Eucharist is made to be the centre of worship, of which Christ, the great High-
Priest in the heavens, is the leader, and the Mosaic ritual the shadow and type. The show-
ing to the Father of that one sacrifice of the cross, which is the basis of all intercession, is
effected by the Lord himself, by his own bodily presence in heaven ; and the Church is enabled
to do the same upon the earth by means of that sacrament in which he places in her hands
the symbols and spiritual reality of his body and blood. The eucharist is regarded as the
antitype of the priestly act of Melchizedek in bringing forth bread and wine to Abraham, the
father of the faithful, from whom he received the tenth of all; and in the offertory, both the
tithes and the offerings of the people are brought up and presented to God as an act of wor-
ship.
* As the death of the cross was itself the fulfillment of all the bloody sacrifices of the Law,
the commemoration of it in the holy Supper becomes the distinguishing Christian rite, from
which all other acts of worship, especially the daily morning and evening services — the anti-
type of the daily services of the Tabernacle — derive their life and power. All the purest and
most catholic parts of all the rituals of Christendom have been gathered up and woven to-
gether, to form, with such additions as the present exigencies of the Church demand, a com-
prehensive and organic system of worship, at once purely Scriptural, and embodying the rich-
est liturgical treasures of the past. Among the errors and superstitions which have been
weeded out are transubstantiation, the worship of the Virgin Mary and of saints and angels,
the use of images and pictures, and prayers for deliverance from purgatorial fires. But in re-
jecting the corruption of the truth, the truth itself has not been cast away ; and the doctrine
of the real presence (as a spiritual mystery involving no physical change of the elements), the
thankful and reverential mention of the Mother of the Loid (•* And with the holy angels, and
with thy Church in all generations, we call her blessed"), and continual supplications and in-
tercessions in behalf of the faithful departed, that they "may rest in the peace of God, and
awake to a joyful resurrection," all have place in the services appointed by the apostles,
914 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
Organization and Unity of the Church.
'The unity of the Church is held as a fundamental fact, resulting from the acts and opera-
Jons of God, and not from the agreements and confederacies of men. There is one IJody
of Christ, embracing all who have been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost (though, like the unfruitful branches of the vine, many may at lust
be cut out and cast away) ; and, in the absence of the Head, the harmonious intercommunion
of the members is secured by the inworking of the One Spirit, and by a ministry proceeding
immediately from the Head, and having jurisdiction over all the parts. The distinction be-
tween the Church Universal and the local or particular churches which compose it, is sharply
drawn in the organization which has been developed under the rule of the apostles. The
apostles themselves are the great Catholic ministry, through which guidance and blessing arc
conveyed to the whole body, and they are assisted in their work by prophets, evangelists, and
pastors.
' But each particular church, when fully organized, is under the rule of an angel, or chief
pastor or bishop, with presbyters and deacons helping him in their subordinate places. It is
his office to stand continually at his own altar at the head of his flock, carrying on the wor-
ship of God, cherishing and directing the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and exercising the pastoral
charge over all the souls committed to his care. The threefold ministry of Episcopacy (ami,
in a lower form, of Presbyterianism) is here united with the central authority which Homo
has wrongfully sought to attain by exalting her bishop to the place of universal headship.
The Second Coming.
'In respect to eschatology, they hold, with the Church of the first three centuries, that the
second coming of the Lord precedes and introduces the millennium ; at the beginning of
which the first resurrection takes place, and at the close the general resurrection, with the
final judgment and its eternal retributions to the righteous and the wicked. This period of
a thousand years will be marked by the presence of the Lord and his risen and translated
saints upon or in near proximity to the earth, then freed, at least partially, from the curso ; by
the re-establishment of the tribes of Israel in their own land, in fulfillment of the promises to
their fathers, with Jerusalem rebuilt, to be the metropolitan centre of blessing to all na-
tions ; and by the bringing of all the families of mankind into the obedience and order and
blessedness of the kingdom of God.
* The restoration of the primitive gifts and ministries, like the ministries of Noah and of .John
the Baptist at the close of the antediluvian and Jewish dispensations, is to prepare for the usher-
ing in of this next stage of God's actings. The order of events is to be as follows : The im-
mediate and special work of the apostles is to gather and make ready a company of first-fruits,
described (Rev. vii. 1-8) as sealed with the seal of the living God— the gift of the Holy Ghost
bestowed by the hands of the apostles (Eph. i. 13 ; Acts xix. 1-5) — and as organized after a
twelvefold law, of which the type was given in the structure of the twelve tribes of Israel.
They are sealed while the angels are holding back the winds of judgment, before the groat
tribulation (Rev. vii. 14) is let loose upon the earth, that in them the Lord's words may be ful-
filled, and they be counted worthy to escape all the things that are coming to pass, and to
stand before the Son of Man (Luke xxi. 36).
'But the taking away of the first-fruits is only the first stage of the mighty work to be done
in the bringing of this dispensation to a close. It is to be followed by the revelation of the
Man of Sin, the infidel Antichrist, who will be successfully resisted for a time by the two
witnesses (Rev. xi. 3-12), but will at length prevail over them, and for a short time rule the
nations with the tyrannizing power and lurid splendors of the pit. In the midst of the terrors
of that great tribulation the harvest will be reaped, and all the faithful gathered into the garner
of the great Husbandman ; and thereupon will be the vintage of wrath (Rev, xiv. 15~20), and
the Lord will come forth to tread the wine-press of his Father's indignation, and to cast the
beast and the false prophet into the lake of fire,
§ 114. THE ARTICLES OF THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. 915
Prospects.
1 They regard the failure of their labors to gather the Churches of Christendom into their
communion as being after the analogy of the failures at the close of all preceding dispensa-
tions, and as furnishing no argument against the reality of their divine mission,
* The apostles do not, therefore, expect to have a large following at this stage of God's work.
As a sbcaf of first-fruits to the harvest, such will be the relation of the few who receive their
testimony to the great multitude who will be saved out of the fiery trial of the time of the
Antichrist. Nor does their faith fail because many of their brethren have been taken away
by death, and it has pleased God to leave their places unfilled ; for they look upon this as an
indication that their present work is nearly finished, and that the Lord will soon take those
who shall be found ready, to stand with him upon Mount Zion, safe in his hiding-place,
while he pours out the vials of his wrath upon the earth. It would seem that the two apos-
tolates at the beginning and the end of the dispensation form the company of the four-and-
twenty elders who sit on thrones around the throne of the great King (Rev. iv. 4), partakers
of his dominion, and associated with him in his work of judgment and rule.
Relation to other Chwnhes.
*This brief statement of the position and doctrines of the *' Catholic Apostolic Church"
shows the grounds of their refusal to be called by any other name than belongs to the whole
community of the baptized. They are a part of the one Church, differing from their brethren
in being gathered under the proper ministries of the Church universal, and in being organized
according to the original law of the Church as defined by St. Paul when speaking of the Body
of Christ (1 Cor. xii.). They hold the one faith, the one hope, and the one baptism ; and,
without departing from the exact and literal teachings of the New Testament, they have added
to these the larger statements of truth which have been the fruits of God's presence with his
Church through all her generations.
* Having its origin among the Protestant Churches, and retaining all the great truths pertain-
ing to the cross of Christ, for which the Reformation was a noble and successful struggle, this
Catholic work has laid under contribution the rich stores of the Greek and Roman commun-
ions, and ia loading tho Church on into still deeper knowledge of the purposes of God con-
tained in holy Scripture, by moans of the living ministers of Christ and the revelations of the
Holy Ghost, to tho end of preparing her as a bride for the marriage of the Lamb.'
§ 114. TIIM ARTICLES OF THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE.
Literature.
Report of the /Y«<vwfrw#/» of tlie Conference, held at Freemasons' Hall, London, from A uguat IQth to
Stptmfor &/ tnobtrtw, 1840. J'uMifilied by Order of tJie Conference. London (Partridge & Oakey, Pater-
notitor Row), 1847.
Oomp. alao the Proceedings of the Seven General Conferences of the Alliance, held at London, 1851, Paris,
355, Berlin, 18r>7, Geneva, 1861, Amsterdam, 1867, New York, 1873, and BasLe, 1870, all published in Eng-
lish, some also in the German, French, Dutch, and other languages.
Tho Omioral Conference of Now York, the first held on American soil, was the most important,
and it« proceedings (published by Harper <fe Brothers, N.Y.I 874) form au interesting panoramic view
of the Intellectual and spiritual state of the Christian world at that time.
OTIAIiACTKR ANT) AIM OF THE ALLIANCE.
The ' Evangelical Alliance ' IB not an ecclesiastical organization, and
has, therefore, no authority to issue and enforce an ecclesiastical creed
or confession of faith. It is a voluntary society for the manifestation
and promotion of Christian union, and for the protection of religious
liberty. Its object is not to bring about an organic union of Churches,
916 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
nor a confederation of independent Churches, but to exhibit and to
strengthen union and co-operatiori among individual members of differ-
ent Protestant denominations without interfering with their respective
creeds and internal affairs. It aims to realize the idea of such a Chris-
tian union as is consistent with denominational distinctions and varieties
in doctrine, worship, and government. It may ultimately lead to a closer
approximation of the Churches themselves, but it may and does exist
without ecclesiastical union ; and ecclesiastical union would be worthless
without Christian union. It is remarkable that our Lord, in his sacer-
dotal prayer, which is the magna charta of Christian union, makes no
reference to the Church or to any outward organization. The com-
munion of saints has its source and centre in their union with Christ,
and this reflects his union with the Father.
The Alliance extends to all nationalities and languages, but is con-
fined, so far, to Christians who hold what is understood to be the Scrip-
tural or evangelical system of faith as professed by the Churches of the
Reformation and their legitimate descendants. It thus embraces Epis-
copalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Meth-
odists, Moravians, and other orthodox Protestants, but it excludes Ro-
man and Greek Catholics on the one hand, and the antitrinitarian
Protestants on the other. The Quakers, though unwisely excluded
by Art. IX., are in full sympathy with one of the two chief objects of
the Alliance — the advocacy of religious liberty.
THE CONFERENCE OF 1846.
The call to the London Conference of 1846 for the formation of an
Evangelical Alliance against infidelity was sufficiently liberal to encour-
age all orthodox Protestants to attend without doing any violence to
their confessional conscience. Bat the High-Church elements, from
aversion to miscellaneous ecclesiastical company, kept aloof, and left
the enterprise in the hands of the evangelical Low-Church and Broad-
Church ranks of Protestantism. The meeting was overwhelmingly
English, and controlled by Episcopalians, Scotch Presbyterians, and
English Dissenters. JSText to them, America was beet represented, and
exerted the most influence. The delegation from the Continent was
numerically small, but highly respectable. The whole number of at-
tendants was over eight hundred ministers and laymen, from about
$ 1 U. THE AftTICLKS OF THE EVANGELICAt ALLIANCE.
iifty distinct ecclesiastical organizations of Protestant Christendom,
among them many scholars and ministers of the highest Christian stand-
ing in their respective Churches and countries. Those who took the
most active part in the proceedings were Sir Culling Eardley Smith
(President), E. Bickcrsteth, B. W. Noel, W. M. Bunting, J. Angell James,
Dr. Steane, Wm. Arthur, T, Binney, O. Winslow, Andrew Keed, of Eng-
land ; Norman Macleod, W. Cunningham, W. Aruot, K. Buchanan,
James IJegg, James Henderson, Ralph Wardlaw, of Scotland; Drs.
Samuel H . Cox, Lyman Beecher, W. Patton, Robert Baird, Thomas
Skinner, E. W. Kirk, S. 8. Schmucker, of the United States; Drs. Tho-
luck, W. Hoffmann, E. Kuntze, of Germany; Adolphe Monod, Georges
Fisch, La Ilarpe, of France and Switzerland. The meeting was one
of unuKual enthusiasm and interest. One of its most eloquent speak-
ers, Dr. Samuel II. Cox, of New York, characterized it as an assembly
* Such as earth saw never,
Such as Heaven stoops down to see.'
The late Dr. Norman Macleod wrote during the meeting, in a private
letter recently brought to light:1 'I have just time to say that our
Alliance goots on nobly. There are one thousand members met from
all the world, attd the prayers and praises would melt your heart.
Wardlaw, Bieker&teth, and Tholnck say that in their whole experience
they never beheld any tiling like it. ... It is much more like heaven
than any thing I over experienced on earth.'
THE DOOTKINAL BASIS.
The part of tho proceedings with which we are concerned here is
the attempt made to set forth the doctrinal consensus of evangelical
Christendom as a basis for the promotion of Christian union and relig-
ious liberty.
Tho Kov. Edward Bickersteth, Eector of Walton, Herts, and one of
the leaders of the evangelical party in the Established Church of Eng-
land, moved the adoption of the doctrinal basis, and Dr. S. H. Cox, a
Presbyterian of New York, supported it in a stirring speech, on the
third day (Aug. 21). After considerable discussion and some unes-
sential modifications, the basis was adopted on the fifth day (Aug. 24),
i Memoir, by his Brother, 1870, Vol. I. p. 260 (N. Y. ed.). The letter to his sister dated
Aug. 4, 1 84G, should be dated Aug. 24.
918 THE CREEDS OF
newine contradicente; the vast majority raising their hands in up
proval, the rest abstaining from voting. The chairman then gave out
the hymn,
'All hail the great Immanuel's name,
Let angels prostrate fall.'
It 'was sung by the Conference with a depth of devotional feeling
which, even during the meetings of the Conference, had never been
surpassed.' l
The doctrinal basis is expressly declared ' not to be a creed or con-
fession in any formal or ecclesiastical sense, but simply an indication
of the class of persons whom it is desirable to embrace within the Al-
liance.' It consists of nine articles: (1) the divine inspiration and su-
preme authority of the Holy Scriptures ; (2) the right and duty of private
judgment in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; (3) the unity
and trinity of the Godhead ; (4) the total depravity of man in conse-
quence of the fall ; (5) the incarnation of the Son of God, his atone-
ment, and his mediatorial intercession and reign ; (6) justification by
faith alone; (7) the work of the Holy Spirit in conversion and sancti-
fication ; (8) the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body,
the judgment of the world by Jesus Christ, with the eternal blessed-
ness of the righteous and the eternal punishment of the wicked*
(9) the divine institution of the Christian ministry, and the perpetuity
of Baptism and the Lord's Supper.
The basis is merely a skeleton : it affirms c what are usually under-
stood to be evangelical views' on the nine articles enumerated. To
give an explicit statement of these views would require a high order
of theological wisdom and circumspection. For the practical purpose
of the Alliance, the doctrinal basis has upon the whole proved suffi-
cient, though some would have it more strict, others more liberal, since
it excludes the orthodox Quakers. It has been variously modified
and liberalized by branch Alliances in calling General Conferences,
The American branch, at its organization in New York, Jan,, 1867,
adopted it with a qualifying preamble, subordinating it to the more
general consensus of Christendom, and allowing considerable latitude
in its construction.2
1 Proceedings, p. 193. a gee Vol. III. p. 821.
§ 115. THE CONSENSUS AND DISSENSUS OF CREEDS. 919
§ 115. TlIK OoNRKNSUS AND DlSSENSUS OF CREEDS.
Pmu: SOIIAKK: 'Fnr Anittffonttnus of Creed*, in the "Contemporary Review," London, Oct. 1S7J (v1 L
21. pp. H38-860). Tim Consc.ntntH of the Reformed CbnAwwrfnw*, in the " Proceedings of the First Gen
Pren. Council," Edinburgh, 1877; separately issued, New York, 1877.
The Creeds of orthodox Christendom have passed before us. A
concluding summary of the points of agreement and disagreement will
aid the reader in forming an intelligent judgment on the possibility,
nature, and extent of an ultimate adjustment of the doctrinal antago-
nisms which are embodied and perpetuated in the symbols of the his-
toric Churches. The argumentation from Scripture, tradition, and rea-
son belongs to the science of Symbolics.
A. THE CATHOLIC CONSENSUS OF GREEK, LATIN, AND EVANGELICAL
CHRISTENDOM.
The Consensus is contained in the Scriptures, and in the oecumen-
ical Creeds which all orthodox Churches adopt. It may be more fully
and clearly specified as follows :
I. — RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.
The Divine Inspiration and Authority of the Canonical Scriptures
in matters of faith and morals. (Against Rationalism.)
II. — THEOLOGY.
1 The Unity of the Divine essence. (Against Atheism, Dualism,
Polytheism.)
2. The Trinity of the Divine Persons.
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the Maker, Redeemer, and Sanctifier.
(Against Arianism, Socinianism, Unitarianistn.)
3. The Divine perfections.
Omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, wisdom, holiness, justice,
love, and mercy.
&. Creation of the world by the will of God out of nothing for his
glory and the happiness of his creatures. (Against Material-
ism, Pantheism, Atheism.)
5. Government of the world by Divine Providence.
VOL. I. — N N N,
9<>0 ?HE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
III. — ANTHROPOLOGY.
1. Original innocence.
Man made in the image of God, with reason and freedom, pure
and holy ; yet needing probation, and liable to fall.
2. Fall : sin and death.
Natural depravity and guilt ; necessity and possibility of salva
tion. (Against Pelagianism and Manichseism.)
3. Redemption by Christ.
IT. — OHRISTOLOGY.
1. The Incarnation of the eternal Logos or second Person in the
Holy Trinity.
2. The Divine-human constitution of the Person of Christ.
3. The life of Christ.
His superhuman conception ; his sinless perfection ; his crucifix-
ion, death, and burial ; resurrection and ascension ; sitting at
the right hand of God; return to judgment.
4. Christ our Prophet, Priest, and King forever.
5. The mediatorial work of Christ, or the atonement.
' He died for our sins, and rose for our justification.'
V. — PNEUMATOLOGY.
1. The Divine Personality of the Holy Spirit,
2. His eternal Procession (iKiropwate, processio) from the Father,
and his historic Mission (TTC'JUI/'IC, missio) by the Father and the
Son.
3. His Divine work of regeneration and sanctification.
VI. — SOTEEIOLOQY.
1. Eternal predestination or election of believers to salvation.
2. Call by the gospel.
3. Regeneration and conversion.
Necessity of repentance and faith.
4:. Justification and sanctification.
Forgiveness of sins and necessity of a holy life.
5. Glorification of believers.
§ 115. THE CONSENSUS AND DISSENSUS OF CREEDS. 921
VII. — ECCLESIOLOGY AND SACRAMENTOLOGY.
1. Divine origin and constitution of the Catholic Church of Christ
2. The essential attributes of the Church universal.
Unity, catholicity, holiness, and indestructibility of the Church.
Church militant and Church triumphant.
3. The ministry of the gospel.
4. The preaching of the gospel.
5. Sacraments : visible signs, seals, and means of grace.
6. Baptism for the remission of sins.
7. The Lord's Supper for the commemoration of the atoning death
of Christ.
VIII. — ESOHATOLOGY.
1. Death in consequence of sin. *
2. Immortality of the soul.
3. The final coming of Christ.
4. General resurrection.
5. Judgment of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ.
6. Heaven and Hell.
The eternal blessedness of saints, and the eternal punishment of
the wicked.
7. God all in all (1 Cor. xv. 28).
B. CONSENSUS AND DISSENSUS OF THE GREEK AND KOMAN CHURCHES.
(a) CONSENSUS.
I. The articles of the oecumenical Creeds, excepting the Filioque
of the Latin recension of the Nicene Creed and the et flio of the
Athanasian Creed.
II. Most of the post-oecumenical doctrines, which are not contained
in the oecumenical Creeds, and from which Protestants dissent, viz. :
1. The authority of ecclesiastical tradition, as a joint rule of faith
with the Scriptures.
2. The worship (njuij™*? Trpoawvwig) of the Virgin Mary, the Saints,
their pictures (not statues), and relics.
3. The infallibility of the Church— that is, the teaching hierarchy
(ecclesia docens).
The Eoman Church lodges infallibility in the papal monarchy,
922 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
the Greek Church in the (seven) oecumenical Councils, and the
patriarchal oligarchy as a whole.1
4. Justification by faith and works, as joint conditions.
5. The Seven Sacraments or Mysteries, with minor differences as to
confirmation and unction.
6. Baptismal regeneration (in an unqualified sense), and the necessity
of water-baptism for salvation.
7. Priestly absolution by divine authority.
8. Transubstantiation (jum>ucr£(o<nc)? and the adoration of the conse-
crated elements.
9. The sacrifice of the Mass for the living and the dead.
This forms the centre of worship. Preaching is subordinate.
10. Prayers for the departed.
On the authority of the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament,
transubstantiation, Purgatory, and a few other points, the Greek
doctrine is not so clearly developed and formulated ; but, upon
the whole, much nearer the Koman view than the Protestant.
As to the popular use of the Bible, there is this important differ-
ence, that the Greek Church has never prohibited it, like the Ro-
man, and that the Russian Church has recently favored it, and
thus opened the way for a wholesome progress and possible ref-
ormation
(b) DISSENSUS.
I. The eternal Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son (Filioque) :
denied by the Greek, taught by the Latin Church.
II. The papal supremacy and infallibility : rejected by the Greek
Church as an antichristian usurpation, asserted by the Latin Church
as its corner-stone.
III. The immaculate conception of the Yirgin Mary: proclaimed as
a dogma by the Pope, 1854.2
1 We say as a whole; for the Greek Church does not claim infallibility for any individual
patriarch, and has herself condemned, in oecumenical Synods, as heretics not only Pope Hono-
rius, of Rome, but also several of her own patriarchs, e. g., Nestorius, of Constantinople ; Dios-
curus, of Alexandria ; Peter the Fuller, of Antioch ; Sallustius, of Jerusalem ; Cyril Lucar,
of Constantinople.
2 The Greek Archbishop Lykurgos, of Syra and Tenos (d. 1876), declared, while in
England, in a conference with the Bishop of Ely, Feb. 4, 1870: 'The Orthodox Church
considers the immaculate conception to be blasphemous. It destroys the doctrine of the
§ 115. THE CONSENSUS AND DISSENSUS OF CREEDS. 923
IV. The marriage of the lower clergy: allowed by the Greek, for-
bidden by the Latin Church.
V. Withdrawal of the eucharistic cup from the laity.
VI. A number of rites and ceremonies.
Greek rites : threefold baptismal immersion, instead of pouring
or sprinkling ; use of leavened, instead of unleavened, bread
in the eucharist ; the invocation of the Holy Ghost for the
benediction of the sacred elements ; infant communion ;
anointing baptized infants; the repetition of holy unction
(TO cix^Xeuov) in sickness.
0. CONSENSUS AND DISSENSUS OF THE GREEK CHURCH ANX> THE
EVANGELICAL CHURCHES.
(a) CONSENSUS.
L They believe the Scriptures and the doctrines of the oecumenical
Creeds. (See A.)
II. They reject :
1. The supremacy and infallibility of the Pope.
2. The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary.
3. The withdrawal of the cup from the laity.
4. The enforced celibacy of priests and deacons.
(The Greek Church, however, prohibits the second marriage of the
lower clergy, and requires the celibacy of the bishops.)
(t>) DISSENSUS.
I. The double Procession of the Holy Spirit.1
II. In the post-oecumenical doctrines mentioned sub B. (a), IE., the
Greek Church sides with Eome against Protestantism.
Incarnation.' But in practice the worship of the blessed Virgin is carried as far in the
Greek Church as in the Latin.
1 In this doctrine the Protestant Confessions side with the Latin Church, or at least they
do not oppose it. The eternal procession of the Spirit was no topic of controversy in the
period of the Reformation, and may be regarded as an open question subject to further ex-
egetical and theological investigation. A number of Episcopalians in England and America
would be willing to expunge the Filioque from the Nicene Creed, or to compromise with
the Orientals on the single procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son. Se«
the Theses of the Bonn Conference of 1875, at the close of Vol. II.
924 THE CREEDS (XF CHRISTENDOM.
D. CONSENSUS AND DISSENSUS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC AND THE
EVANGELICAL PEOTESTANT CHURCHES.
(a) CONSENSUS. (See sub A.)
(J) DISSENSUS.
I. Scripture and Tradition, as a rule of faith.
Eoman Catholic doctrine :
The necessity of ecclesiastical tradition (culminating in the infal-
lible decisions of the papal see), as a joint rule of faith and as
the sole interpreter of Scripture.
Protestant doctrine :
The absolute supremacy and sufficiency of the Scriptures as a
guide to salvation.
II. Other differences concerning the Scriptures.
1. Extent of the Canon :
The Apocrypha of the Old Testament are included in the Eoman,
excluded from the Protestant Canon.
2. Authority of the Latin Vulgate :
Put on a par with the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures by Eome ;
while Protestantism claims divine authority only for the origi-
nal Scriptures of the inspired authors.
3. Popular use and circulation of the Bible :
Discouraged (and relatively forbidden) by Eome ; encouraged by
Protestantism, which goes hand in hand with the Word of God,
and must stand or fall with it.
III. Objects of Worship.
Eoman Catholic doctrine :
1. God (latria) ;
2. The Virgin Mary (hyjperdulia) ;
3. Angels and Saints (dulia) ;
4. Images and Eelics of Saints.
Protestant doctrine :
God alone. All other worship is gross or refined idolatry.
The Eoman Catholic Christian approaches Christ through human
mediators, and virtually substitutes the worship of Mary for the
worship of Christ; the Protestant approaches Christ directly,
§ 115. THE CONSENSUS AND DISSENSUS OF CREEDS. 925
aad prays to him as his only and all-sufficient High-Priest and
Intercessor with the Father.
IV. Primitive State.
Difference (asserted by Eoman Catholics, denied by Protestants) be-
tween the image of God (imago, EIKWV, nla), i. e., the natural per-
fection of the first man as a rational and free being, and simili-
tude of God (similitude, ojuotWic, m*i), i- &, the supernatural en-
dowment of man with righteousness and holiness together with
the immortality of the body.
V. Original Sin.
Eoman Catholic doctrine :
Original sin is a negative defect (carentia justiticz originalis\ or
the loss of the similitude — not of the image — of God, and is
entirely removed by baptism.
Protestant doctrine :
Original sin is a positive corruption and total depravity, involving
the loss of (spiritual) freedom, and retains the character of sin
after baptism.
VI. Justification by faith and good works (Eoman Catholic) ; — or by
faith alone (Protestant).
1. Different conceptions of justification (Stieafojcne, justificatid) : a
gradual process of making the sinner righteous (identical with
sanctification) ; — or a judicial and declaratory act of God (ac-
quittal of the penitent sinner on the ground of Christ's mer-
its and on condition of faith in Christ), followed by sanctifica-
tion.
2. Different conceptions of faith : intellectual assent and submission
to divine authority ; — or personal trust in Christ and living union
with him.
3. Different position assigned to works : condition of justification ;
— or evidence of justification.
4. Assurance of justification and salvation: denied (except on the
ground of a special revelation) by Eoman Catholics; asserted
by Protestants (though in different degrees).
Paul and James. Basis of reconciliation : faith operative in love.1
1 Gal. v. 6, TrtVrif Si dyairng kvspyovpkvii, is to be explained as the dynamic middle, not
as the passive, * completed in love ' (the Jlde^formata of Roman Catholic commentators).
926 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
VII. Good works of believers.
The meritoriousness of good works (meritum ess congruo and meri*
turn ex condigno} : Works of supererogation, not commanded,
but recommended (consilia evangelica\ with corresponding extra
merits, which constitute a treasury at the disposal of the Pope
for the dispensation of indulgences.
Here is the root of the ascetic and monastic system (vota monastica :
voluntary obedience, poverty, and celibacy), and the chief differ-
ence between Roman Catholic and Evangelical ethics.
VIII. The Church.
1. Identification of the Church of Christ with the Church of Home
— the fundamental error (the irp&Tov ^Soc) of the papacy.
2. Distinction of the invisible Church (one and universal under the
sole headship of Christ), and the visible Church (existing in many
organizations or denominations) : asserted by Protestants ; denied
by Roman Catholics.
3. Different conception and application of the attributes of the
Church ; unity, holiness, catholicity, apostolicity, indefectibility,
infallibility, and exclusiveness, especially the last (extra ecclesiam
nulla solus, which is made to mean extra ecdesiam Homanairi).
IK. The Pope.
The infallible head of the Universal Church, the Vicar of Christ on
earth, by virtue of his office as the successor of Peter.
This is the cardinal doctrine of Romanism, but rejected by Greeks
and Protestants as an antichristian usurpation of the prerogative
of Christ.
X. Sacraments in general.
1. Definition : visible signs of invisible grace instituted by the ex-
press command of Christ in the New Testament (Protestant) ;— -
or simply by the authority of the Church (Roman Catholic).
2. Number: seven (Roman Catholic); — or two (Baptism and the
Lord's Supper).
3. Effect: ex opere operate (i.e., by virtue of the objective act); — or
through faith (as the subjective condition).
XL Baptism.
Its effect on original sin ; its relation to regeneration ; its necessity
for salvation ; and several ritual differences.
§ 115. THE CONSENSUS AND DISSENSUS OF CREEDS. 927
XII. The Eucharist.
Romanism holds. Protestantism denies :
1. Transubstantiation and the adoration of the elements.
2. The withdrawal of the cup from the laity.
3. The Eucharist as a sacrifice, L #., an actual though unbloody rep-
etition of Christ's sacrifice on the cross by the priest for the sins
of the living and the dead (the souls in purgatory).
The celebration of the Mass is the centre of Roman Catholic worship.
XIII. The other five Sacraments : Confirmation, Penance, Matrimony,
Ordination, Extreme Unction.
Maintained by Rome as sacraments proper; rejected by Protestants,
or admitted only as semi- or quasi-sacramental acts.
1. Confirmation.
Retained by the Lutheran, Anglican, and the German Reformed
Churches (as supplementary to infant baptism after a course
of catechetical instruction). Rejected by other Protestant
Churches, in which a voluntary union with the Church by a
public profession of faith takes the place of confirmation.
2. Penance (sacramentum p&nitentice).
Auricular confession and priestly absolution; satisfaction for
venial sins ; indulgences. The Lutheran (and Anglican) stand-
ards approve private confession to the minister; other Churches
leave it entirely optional ; all Protestants deny the efficacy of
priestly absolution except as an official declaration of God's
forgiving mercy to the penitent
3. Ordination.
A separate priesthood and clerical celibacy (Roman Catholic);
the general priesthood of the laity and the right of the laity
to participate in Church government (Protestant).
4. Matrimony.
Differences in matrimonial legislation, mixed marriages, and di-
vorce.
5. Extreme unction.
Rejected by Protestants, who in James v. 14 emphasize the pray-
ing rather than c the anointing with oil ' (a physical remedy).
XIY. Purgatory.
A temporary middle place and state (until the final judgment) be-
928 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
tween heaven and hell for the purification of imperfect Christians,
which may be advanced by prayers and masses in their behalf.
Protestantism holds that there are only two conditions in the other
world, but with various degrees of bliss or misery.
The indulgences closely connected with purgatory were the first oc-
casion, though not the cause, of the Reformation.
E. DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES AMONG EVANGELICAL PROTESTANTS.
I. — LUTHERANISM AND CALVINISM.
1. Baptismal Regeneration.
Baptism a means of regeneration (as concurrent with the sacra-
mental act), and hence necessary for salvation ; — or only a sign
and seal of regeneration (whether concurrent or preceding or
succeeding, according to God's free pleasure).
2. The Eucharistic presence.
Corporeal real presence (in, with, and under the elements) for all
communicants ; — or spiritual real (dynamic and effective) pres-
ence for believers only.
3. Christological.
The extent of the communicatio idiomatum.1 The ubiquity of
Christ's body : asserted by the Lutheran Church (as a dogmatic
support to its doctrine of the eucharistic multipresence) ; denied
by the Reformed (as inconsistent with the limitations of human-
ity and the fact of Christ's ascension to heaven).
4. Predestination and the perseverance of saints.
No difference between Luther and Calvin, who were both Augus-
tinians, but between their followers. (Synergism of Melanch-
thon in his later period. Semi-Augustinianism of the Formula
of Concord. Extreme Calvinism of the Synod of Dort.)
II. — CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM.
1. Election : unconditional ; — or conditional.
2. Extent of redemption : limited to the elect ; — or unlimited to all
men.
1 That is, whether it includes also the genus majestaticum, or the communication of the
attributes of the divine nature to the human nature of Christ — affirmed by the Lutheran
symbols, denied by the Reformed. See pp. 319 sqq.
$115. THE CONSENSUS AND DtSSENSUS OF CREEDS. 929
3 and 4. Nature of faith and grace : irresistible ; — or resistible.
5. Perseverance of saints;— or the possibility of total and final apos-
tasy.
III. — CONGREGATIONALISM.
1. Conception of a Christian congregation or local church : a self-
governing body of converted believers voluntarily associated for
spiritual ends.
2. Independence of such a church of foreign jurisdiction.
3. Duty of voluntary fellowship with other churches.
IV. — BAFPIST DOOTJBINES.
1. Congregationalism as sub III.
2. Baptism.
(a) Its subjects : only responsible converts on the ground of a
voluntary profession of their faith.
(b) Its mode : total immersion of the body.
3. Universal liberty of conscience as a sphere over which civil gov-
ernment has no control. (* Soul-liberty.')1
V. — QUAKER DOCTRINES.
1. Universal diffusion of the inner light for the salvation of men.
2. Immediate revelation superior to, though concordant with, the ont-
ward testimony of the Scriptures.
3. The ministry of the gospel depending on inspiration, and not con-
fined to a class or sex.
4. The sacraments are spiritual acts, not visible rites and ceremonies,
as under the old dispensation.
5. Worship is purely inward, and depends upon the immediate mov-
ing of the Holy Spirit.
6. Universal religious liberty.
1 President Anderson, of Rochester University (article Baptists in Johnson's Cyclopcedia,
Vol. I. p. 383), enumerates four distinctive doctrinal principles of the Baptists: (1) immersion;
(2) believers only to constitute a visible church ; (3) responsible converts only entitled to bap-
tism ; (4) separation of Church and State, and independence of each individual church *s a
body of baptized believers of any other body, whether ecclesiastical or political. But *he
second article is held also by the Congregationalists, and the fourth can not be called «n
article of faith.
930 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
VI. — METHODIST DOCTRINES.
1. Universal offer of salvation in different dispensations.
2. Witness of the Spirit, or assurance of present acceptance with God.
3. Christian perfection, or perfect sanctiiication.
F. OBTHODOX PROTESTANTISM AND HETERODOX PROTESTANTISM.
I , SOOINIANISM (UNITARIANISM). Denies the following oecumenical doc-
trines :
1. The Trinity.
2. The Incarnation and eternal Divinity of Christ.
3. Original sin and guilt.
4. The vicarious atonement.
II. UNIVERSALISM departs from the orthodox doctrines of the —
1. Nature and extent of sin and its consequences.
2. Endless punishment. (Difference between Restorationism and
Universalism proper).
HI- SWEDENBORGIANISM asserts :
1. A new revelation and a new Church (the New Jerusalem).
2. Intercourse with the spirit world.
3. It limits the number of the canonical Scriptures.
.4. It claims to unlock the deeper inner sense of the Scriptures.
5. It dissents from the evangelical doctrines of the tripersonality of
the Godhead, the incarnation, the atonement, justification, the
Church, the sacraments, and the resurrection.
§ 116. THE DISCIPLES OF CHRIST.
Literature.
R.ICHABDSON: Memoirs of A. Campbell, new ed., Cinti., 1888 — A Debate between Rev. A. Campbell
and Rev. N. L. Rice on Christian Baptism and Eccles. Creeds as Terms of Communion, Nov. 15-Dec. 2,
1843, Lexington, 1844, pp. 912. — I. ERRETT: Our Position, a tract, Cinti., 1901. — J. H. GABBISON:
The Old Faith Restated, St. Louis, 1891. — B. B. TYLER: Hist, of the Disciples of Christ, Am. Ch. Hist.
Series, N. Y., 1894. — F. D. POWERS: Art. in SCHAFP-HERZOG Enc., III., 443 sq. — J. S. LAMAR: Life
of I. Errett, 2 vole., CintL, 1894.— W. T. MOOEE: Compar. Hist, of the Disciples of Christ, N. Y., 1909,
pp. 830. — SUMMERBBLL: The Christians and the Disciples, Dayton, 1906.— ERRETT GATES: The Dis-
ciples of Christ, in "Story of the Chh.," Chaps. XI-XIV., N. Y., 1905.— P. AINSLIB: The Message of,
the Disciples for the Union of the Church, N. Y., 1913, pp. 210. Gives the "Declaration and Address"
in full. Also The Scandal of Christianity, N. Y., 1929. — J. K. KBLLEMS: A. Campbell and the Disciples,
N. Y., 1930, pp. 409.
A large and influential Christian body whose historic position has
§ 116. THE DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 931
been antagonism to all Church creeds containing articles formulated by
non-biblical writers is the group known as The Disciples of Christ, In
the number of its members, the fifth Protestant ecclesiastical body in
the United States, it arose early in the nineteenth century in Western
Pennsylvania under the leadership of Thomas Campbell, a Seceder min-
ister from North Ireland and his son, Alexander Campbell. Bom in
Ireland, Sept. 12, 1788, Alexander came to America, 1809, settled in
the Western part of Pennsylvania and died March 4, 1866, in Bethany,
West Virginia, where he had established a college. Seeking relief from
the restraints of ecclesiastical formularies and a return to the so-called
implicity and ordinances of "original Christianity, " Thomas, then a
Presbyterian minister, formed "the Christian Association of Washing-
ton," Pennsylvania, and issued, 1809, a "Declaration and Address" to
which the Disciples go back as the justification and basis of their exist-
ence as a distinct group. In 1811, he and his foUowers joined themselves
in an independent organization at Brush Run, Pa. Two years later,
the organization united with the Redstone Baptist Association. A divi-
sion arising in this body over the principles of the "Church Reforma-
tion," as the movement led by the Campbells was called, the followers
of the Campbells constituted themselves an independent body, 1827.
Four years later, this body was enlarged by the accession of a number
of churches which f ollowed Rev. Barton W- Stone, once a member of
the Presbytery of Lexington, Kentucky. The members of the Ken-
tucky churches preferred to caU themselves by the simple name " Chris-
tians" and for this reason the "Disciples" have often gone by that name.
Alexander Campbell, the real founder of the new movement, was
ordained 1812 and immersed a few months later. He was a man of
intellectual vigor and independence of thought, of positiveness of con-
viction and statement, and became abundant in labors. His views were
set forth not only in the pulpit but through the columns of two periodi-
cals, the Christian Baptist and the Millennial Harbinger, and in public
discussions on the platform. These discussions, which aroused wide
attention in Southern Ohio and the South West, were carried on with
Robert Owen, 1829, and Archbishop Purcell of the Roman Catholic
Church, 1837, both in Cincinnati, and with the noted Presbyterian
polemic theologian, Dr. Nathan L. Rice, in Lexington, Ky., 1843. The
last discussion, which lasted sixteen days, had Henry Clay as its chair-
932 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
man. Campbell was accused of being " contentious " and " disputatious "
while Ms skill as a debater was generally recognized.
The distinctive tenets of the Disciples, as set forth in the Declaration
and Address, are the "alone-sufficiency and all-sufficiency of the Bible"
—to use the language of Alexander Campbell— and the unadulterated
evil of Christian creeds and the denominational divisions in Christendom.
With other Christians, they hold to the doctrines of the trinity, original
sin, Christ's atonement and resurrection, the necessity of repentance
and regeneration, and the two future states. They reject — to follow
the Declaration and Address — human opinions and the inventions of
men as having any authority in the Church of God and profess "to
stand upon the ground on which the Church stood at the beginning . . .
and to take up things just as the Apostles left them." The Society,
so it was affirmed, "was formed for the sole purpose of promoting simple
evangelical Christianity and to promote only such measures as reduce
to practice the original form of Christianity expressly exhibited in the
sacred page. . . . Everything not taught and enjoined in the Bible is of
no authority and nothing is to be made a term of communion among
Christians which is not as old as the New Testament." Creeds of human
composition are a calamity and have been the cause of the historic
divisions in the Church and "divisions among Christians is a horrid
evil. Although the Church of Christ must necessarily exist in particular
and distinctive societies, locally separate one from another, yet ought
there to be no schisms, no uncharitable divisions, among them." Fur-
ther, by the Declaration and Address, the society rejected the appli-
cation to itself of the name "Church" and its members desired to be
regarded "merely as voluntary advocates of Church reformation; and,
tired of the jarrings and janglings of a party spirit, to restore unity,
peace and purity to the whole Church of God, " — a large, if not ambi-
tious, and certainly most laudable purpose. In accordance with these
affirmations, whereby the Scriptures are not only treated as the sole
standard of Christian teaching but its language the sole organ through
which it is to be conveyed and all human formularies intended to state
and summarize those teachings are set aside as evil in their consequences,
the Disciples have been inclined to look upon themselves as pioneers
in the movement of Christian unity and Church union. For twenty
years the body has had within itself an Association for the Promotion
§ 117. THE UNIVERSALISTS. 933
of Christian Unity. In spite of their formal declarations and wishes,
the Disciples are a distinct ecclesiastical body, following the congrega-
tional scheme of church government and observing usages distinguishing
them from many Christian bodies such as the weekly observance of the
Lord's Supper and baptism by immersion, though denying baptismal
regeneration. Whether such usages, the doctrines explicitly held in
common with all Christians and their opposition to creeds, constitute
a confessional formulary or not, seems to admit of two answers. The
large volume of Kellems, 1930, ascribes to Alexander Campbell a doc-
trinal system no less positive than are the systems of other ecclesiastical
bodies. By their evangelical activity and warm manifestation of union
among themselves, the Disciples of Christ have not only reached large
bodies of people but won the fellowship of other Christian communions
and have shown that a Church's efficiency and solidarity does not neces-
sarily depend upon an explicit formulary of human composition. The
most prominent personage among the Disciples since Alexander Camp-
bell has been James A. Garfield, President of the United States.
§ 117. THE UNIVEKSALISTS.
The Universalist Churches of the United States, starting in New
England, have modified the orthodox Christian system as expressed in
the historic creeds but while differing among themselves, they retain
reverence for Christ as a divine teacher, the belief in the immortality
of the soul and suitable awards after death for conduct in this world.
A movement towards the union of Congregational and Universalist
churches has had advocates as in California, 1930. The New England
Convention of Universalist Churches, meeting in Winchester, New
Hampshire, 1803, adopted a Profession of Belief in three articles. Eddy,
in his Hist, of Universalismj says that "while the Profession was suffi-
ciently definite to exclude the possibility of mistaking its most promi-
nent thought, the reconciliation of all souls to God, it was sufficiently
liberal to be acceptable alike to Trinitarians and to Unitarians, to the
believer in future punishment and to the believer that the consequences
of sin are confined to this life." In 1899 the General Convention,
meeting in Boston, added to the Winchester Profession, clauses giving
"The Conditions of Fellowship." At a meeting of the Convention in
Winchester, 1903, celebrating the adoption of the Profession, its three
934 THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
articles were spoken of "as the first explicit statement in a creed of
what is known as liberal Christianity."
"THE PROFESSION OF BELIEF AND CONDITIONS OF FELLOWSHIP are
as follows"1:
ART. I. We believe that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments contain
a revelation of the character of God and of the duty, interest and final destination of man-
kind. ART. II, We believe that there is one God, whose nature is Love revealed in one
Lord Jesus Christ, by one Holy Spirit of Grace, who will finally restore the whole family
of mankind to holiness and happiness. ART. III. We believe that holiness and true
happiness are inseparably connected, and that believers ought to be careful to maintain
order and practice good works; for these things are good and profitable unto men.
The Conditions of Fellowship shall be as follows: 1. The acceptance of the essential prin-
ciples of the Universalist Faith to wit: 1 The Universal Fatherhood of God; 2 The Spiritual
authority and leadership of His Son, Jesus Christ; 3 The trustworthiness of the Bible as
containing a revelation from God; 4 The certainty of just retribution for sin; 5 The final
harmony of all souls with God.
The Winchester Profession is commended as containing these principles but neither
this nor any other precise form of words is required as a condition of fellowship, provided
always that the principles above stated be professed.
2. The acknowledgment of the authority of the General Convention and assent to
its laws.
§ 118. THE UNITARIANS.
The Unitarian Churches are a free association of societies which lay
stress upon practical aims and require no subscription to a doctrinal
formula. The nearest approach to such a formula is the declaration
written by James Freeman Clarke and published by the Unitarian
Sunday School Union, affirming "belief in the fatherhood of God, the
brotherhood of man, the leadership of Jesus, salvation by character,
the progress of mankind upward and onward forever." Founded in
1825, the American Unitarian Association announced its object to be
"to diffuse the knowledge and promote the interest of pure Christi-
anity." The older Unitarians, represented by Channing, while they
rejected binding creedal formulas, the doctrines of the Trinity and
total depravity and what was called the bleak Calvinism of New Eng-
land, held to the exaltation of Christ and the immortality of the soul.
Twenty of the original congregations of Massachusetts, including the
Plymouth church, allied themselves with the movement. Humanistic
efforts have been emphasized. In Boston, which became the home of
1 Minutes of the Winchester Convention, Washington, 1929. In 1878 the Universalists
of Boston and vicinity put forth a statement of belief in 9 articles which was not adopted
by the convention. See R. Eddy: Hist, of Universalism* in Am, Church Hist, series,
X; 255-607.— ED.
§ 118. THE UNITARIANS. 935
literary culture, many of its representatives broke loose entirely from
the historic New England ecclesiastical system and abandoned Chris-
tianity as a supernatural revelation for the philosophy known as trans-
cendentalism. By the middle of the 19th century, Unitarianism had
become synonymous with religious liberalism, basing its conclusions in
part upon the results of German rationalistic criticism. Outside of
Massachusetts, its following has been small and its churches include
groups which join with the name Unitarian extreme tenets of religious
liberalism. President Eliot of Harvard pronounced "independent
thought the chief feature of Unitarianism."
In 1865, largely under the influence of Dr. Bellows of New York City,
"the National Conference of Unitarian anld Other Christian Churches "
was organized and passed the following resolution.:
*'To secure the largest unity of the spirit and the -widest practical co-operation of our
body, it is hereby understood that all the resolutions and declarations of this convention
are expressions only of its majority, committing in no degree those who object to them,
claiming no other than a moral authority over the members of the convention, or the
churches represented here, and are all dependent wholly for their effect upon the consent
they command on their own merits from the churches here represented or belonging within
the circles of our special fellowship."
The words used in the preamble "The obligations of all disciples of
the Lord Jesus Christ" led to a warm discussion and the formation of
"The Free Religious Association." At a meeting of the National Con-
ference, 1894, the following preamble concerning faith and fellowship
was adopted and has been interpreted in some sections to include in the
fellowship of the Unitarian churches, members of the Brahmo Somaj
of India and all others who "sympathize with the spirit and practical
aims" of the Unitarians:1
"The Conference of Unitarian and other Christian Churches was formed in the year
1865, with the purpose of strengthening the churches and societies which should unite
in it for more and better work for the kingdom of God. These churches accept the
religion of Jesus, holding, in accordance with his teaching, that practical religion is summed
up in love to God and love to man. The Conference recognizes the fact that its constitu-
ency is Congregational in tradition and polity. Therefore, it declares that nothing in
this constitution is to be construed as an authoritative test; and we cordially invite to
our working fellowship any who, while differing from us in belief, are in general sympathy
with our spirit and our practical aims."
iBatchelor in Christian Register, 1906, p. 202, 203. See J. H. Allen: The Unitarian
Movement since the Reformation, in Am. Ch. Hist. Series, X, pp. 1-249, N. Y., 1894; G. W.
Cooke: Unitarianism in America, Boston, 1902. E. Emerton; Unfar* Thought, N. Y.,
1911.
INDEX TO VOL. I.
Adiaphoristic Controversy, 298.
Adrian VI., 92.
JEpinus, 296.
Agricola, 278.
A Lasco, 565, 583.
Alencon, Synod of, 483.
Alexander VI., 166.
Alexander VII., 104, 125.
Alliance, Evangelical, 666, 915.
Alva, 503.
Ambrose, 114.
American Catholic Bishops against Papal In-
fallibility, 152.
American Congregational Creeds, 835.
Amsdorf, 267, 276.
Amyraut (Amyraldus), 477, 480, 488.
Anabaptists, 841.
Andreas (Jacob), 50, 289, 308, 311, 339.
Andreas (Valentine), 460.
Andrews (W. W.), on the Catholic Apostolic
Church, 911.
Anglican Articles of Religion, 592.
Anglican Catechism, 654.
Anglican Church, 212, 218, 592, 598.
Anglican Liturgy, 595, 601.
Anglo-Catholic Correspondence with the East-
ern Church, 74.
Anglo-Catholicism of Laud, 716.
Angus (Joseph), 852.
Anselm, on the Immaculate Conception, 122.
Antinomian Controversy, 277.
Anypostasia of the Human Nature of Christ, 32.
Apology of the Augsburg Confession, 243.
Apostles' Creed, 14 and passim.
Armada, 705.
Armenians, 81.
Arminianism in Holland, 508; in England,
713; of Methodism, 894.
Arminius and Arminians, 510.
Arrowsmith, 741, 770.
Articles of Religion : of the Church of Eng-
land, 611, 613, 615, 620; revised by the
Westminster Assembly, 752 ; of th$ Prot-
estant Episcopal Church in America, 650,
653; of Lambeth, 658 ; Irish, 662; of the
Reformed Episcopal Church, 665, 667 ; of
the Methodists, 889; of the Evangelical
Alliance, 9 17.
Articles of Smalcald, 253.
Asbury (Bishop), 884, 888.
Assembly of Westminster, 727. See West-
minster Assembly.
Associate Church, 812.
Associate Reformed Church, 811.
Athanasian Creed, 34.
Atonement, universal or limited, 481, 512,
771, 895.
Auburn Declaration, 809.
Augsburg Confession, 225 SLTL& passim ; used
in the Anglican Articles, 623.
Augsburg Diet, 226.
Augsburg Interim, 299.
Augusta, 579.
Augustine, on the Apostles' Creed, 15, 17, 18;
on the Sinlessness of Mary, 119; against
Papal Infallibility, 175; influence on Prot-
estant Creeds, 210; on Infant Salvation,
379 ; on Predestination, 452 ; on Baptismal
Regeneration and Perseverance, 640.
Augustus, Elector of Saxony, 282, 308, 311,
557.
B.
Bacon (Leonard), 821, 827, 838.
Baillie (Robert), 690, 693, 727, 737, 746 5
his description of the Westminster Assem-
bly, 750 ; of a day of prayer and fasting,
752 ; on the Westminster Confession, 789.
Bains, 124.
Bancroft (Bishop), 607, 708.
Baptism, Lutheran doctrine of, 346, 349;
Zwinglian, 373 ; Calvinistic, 414, 641 ; An-
glican, 639 ; necessity of, 642 ; Baptist doc-
trine, 845 ; Quaker doctrine, 866.
Baptists advocating Religious Liberty, 802;
history of, 844.
Baptists (Arminian), 857.
Baptists (Calvinistic), 845.
938
INDEX.
Barclay (Robert), 859, 861, 864.
Barlow (William), 708.
Barneveldt, 511.
Baro, 659.
Barrett, 659.
Basle, First Confession of, 385, 387 ; Second
Confession of, 388.
Bathori, 585.
Baur versus Mohler, 89 ; on Calvin, 449.
Baxter (Richard), 725, 726; on the West-
minster Assembly, 729 ; on the Westmin-
ster Standards, 760.
Becon (Thomas), on Baptism, 643.
Belgic Confession, 504.
Bellarmin, Standard Champion of Romanism,
85, 102 ; on Infallibility, 182 ; on Ubiquity,
334.
Benedict XHI., 107.
Benedict XIV., 107.
Bergen Formula, 31 1 . See Formula of Con-
cord.
Bernard of Clairvaux, against the Immaculate
Conception, 121.
Berne, Conference and Ten Theses of, 364.
Bersier, 498.
Bertram, 648.
Bessarion (Cardinal), 46.
Beza, 393, 429, 434, 436, 438, 441, 468, 603.
Bible. See Scriptures.
Bibliander, 477.
Birgitte, 124.
Bismarck, 133, 150.
Blaarer, 397.
Blackmore, 68, 71, 73.
Blondel, 482.
Bockel, 355 and passim.
Bohler (Peter), 886.
Bockelsohn (John), 842.
Bogerman, 513.
Bohemian Brethren, in Bohemia, 566; in Po-
land, 582.
Bohemian Confessions, 576.
Bolsec,421,474.
Bonar (Horatius), on Catechisms, 5449 697.
Boniface VIIL, 365, 176.
Book of Concord, 220.
Borromeo, 100.
Bossuet, 86, 102, 183.
Boston Declaration of Faith, 837.
Boucher (Joan), 846.
Bownd (Nicolas), on the Christian Sabbath,
777.
Bradwardine, 769.
Bramhall (Bishop), 664.
Brandenburg Confessions, 554.
Breitinger, 513.
Bremen Confession, 564.
Brentius. See JBrentz.
Brentz, his Christology and Ubiquity doctrines
290 ; his Wurtemberg Confession, 344, 627
Bres (Guido de), 504.
Breviary, Roman, 190.
Browne (Bishop), on the Apostles' Creed, 16 ;
on the XXXIX. Articles, 601, 638, 648.
Browne (Robert) and Brownists, 824.
Brownson (Orestes), 90.
Brack, 233, 243.
Bucer, 304, 388,471,525.
Buchanan (George), 670.
Bullinger, his life and labors, 390 ; his Con-
fession of Faith, 396 ; on the Lord's Sup-
per, 471 ; on Predestination, 475; on the
Heidelberg Catechism, 551 ; influence in
England, 602, 630, 637.
Bungener, on Calvin, 441.
Banyan (John), 723, 725, 848.
Burnet (Bishop), 637.
Buxtorf, 479.
C.
Calamy (Edmund), 742, 770.
Calixtines, 566.
Calixtus, 350, 380, 557, 561.
Callistus, 177.
Calovius, 350, 380, 561.
Calvin, on the Apostles' Creed, 15, 20; on
the Nicene Creed, 27; relation to Luther
and Melanchthon, 214, 215, 217, 218;
signs the Augsburg Confession, 235; on
the Adiaphoristic Controversy, 301 ; life
and character, 421 ; his theology, 446 ;
his Institutes, 447; on Predestination, 451,
474; on the Lord's Supper, 455 (281,
376) ; his Exegesis, 457 ; on Church Polity
and Discipline, 460 ; on Religious Persecu-
tion and Liberty, 463, 466 ; his Catechism,
467; Consensus Tigurinus, 471; Consen-
sus Genevensis, 474 ; on Episcopacy in Po-
land, 582; influence in England, 602, 630,
658; on Baptism and Election, 641.
Calvinism, 446. See Calvin, Don, Lambeth
Articles^ and Westminster Confession.
Calvinistic Baptists. See Baptists.
Calvinistic Methodism, 901.
Cambridge Platform, 836.
Cameron, 480.
Campbellites, 840, 845.
Capito, 385, 388.
Cappel (Louis), 479.
Cardoni, 163.
INDEX.
939
Ciirlyle (Thomas), on the Scotch Reformation,
071 ; on John Ivnox, 676 ; on the Westmin-
ster Catechism ,78 7; on Edward Irving, 908
Cartwright, 706, 735.
Caryl (Joseph), 742.
Castellio, 4=75.
Catechism, Anglican, 654 ; of the Bohemian
Brethren, f>74; of Calvin, 467; of Craig.
697 ; of Emden, 565 ; Heidelberg (Pal*
tinate), f>29 ; of Luther, 245, 543 ; of Mo-
gilas (Russo-Greek), 58 ; of Haton, 71 ; of
Philaret, 71 ; Scotch, 696 ; Tiidentine
(Roman), 100; Waldensian, 572; West-
minster, 543, 783; of the Quakers, 864;
of the Methodists, 882, 891.
Catharine of Siena, 1 24.
Catholic Apostolic Church, 905.
Catholicism and Protestantism, 207.
Catholicism and Romanism, 83, 205.
Chalcedon, Creed of, 29.
Chalmers (Thomas), 696, 885, 906, 908.
Chandieu, 493.
Charenton, Synod of, 483.
Charles (Thomas), 903.
Charles I., 617, 664, 688, 691, 693, 694; his
character and reign, 709.
Charles II., 619, 694, 721, 724.
Charles V., 92, 225, 227, 503.
Chemnitz, against the Council of Trent, 96 ;
on the Communicatio Idiomatwn and the
Ubiquity of Christ's Body, 292.
Chillingworth, on the Athanasian Creed, 40 ;
on Religious Toleration, 803.
Christological Controversy, 285.
Christology, Chalcedonian, 30 ; Lutheran and
Reformed, 317, 325, 347, 348.
Church, meaning of, 822.
Church Diet of Berlin adopts the Augsburg
Confession, 236.
Civiltfc, Cattolica, 139, 158.
Clarendon, 728.
Clement of Rome, 174.
Clement V1IL, 189.
Clement XL, 105, 107.
Coccejus (John), 774.
Cochlseus, 227.
Coke (Thomas), 887.
Coleman (Thomas), 742.
Collyridianse, 119.
Comenius (Amos), 567, 875.
Communicatio Idiomatum, Lutheran doctrine
of, 318,324.
Concord, Book of, 220 ; Formula of, 258.
Confession and Absolution in the Lutheran
Church, 248.
Confession of Faith. See Creeds.
Confession of Anhalt, 563; of Augsburg,
225; Baptist, 851 ; of Basle, L, 385; of
Basle, II., 388; of Belgium, 502; of the
Bohemian Brethren, 576 ; of Brandenburg,
554 ; of Bremen, 564 ; Congregational,
828; Cumberland Presbyterian, 815; of
Cyril Lucar, 54 ; of Dositheus (Synod of
Jerusalem), 61 ; French Reformed (Galli-
can), 490, 500 ; of Friends, 864, 870 ; of
Gennadius,46; Helvetic, L, 388; Helvetic,
II., 390; of Hessia, 564: Hungarian, 591 •
Methodist, 890; of Metrophanes Critopu-
lus, 52; of Mogila, 58; Moravian, 878;
of Nassau, 564; Reformed (in general),
354 ; Savoy, 829 ; Scotch, L, 680 ; Scotch,
II., 686; of Sigismund, 555 ; Tetrapolitan,
526; of Thorn, 562; Welsh Calvinistic,
903; of Westminster, 753.
Confutatio Papistica, 227, 243.
Congregational Declarations. See Confession.
Congregationalism and Congregationalisms,
820.
Consensus and Dissensus of Creeds, 919.
Consensus of Geneva, 474 ; Helveticus, 477,
485; of Sendomir, 586 ; of Zurich, 471.
Consubstantiation, 232, 316, 325, 327.
Cop, 427.
Copts, 80.
Corvinus, 302.
Cotton (John), 820, 850.
Council, of Nica&a, first, 25, 44, 173 ; second,
44 ; of Chalcedon, 29, 173; of Constanti-
nople, first, 25, 28, 44 ; second, 44 ; third,
44; fourth, 178; of Ephesus, 44; of Fer-
rara and Florence, 46, 97, 181 ; of Jerusa-
lem (1672), 61 ; of Pisa, Constance, Basle,
182 ; of Trent, 91, 124 ; of the Vatican,
134, 168.
Covenanters, 694.
Covenants, Scotch, 685; doctrine of, 773.
Craig (John), 686, 698.
Cranmer, 596, 601, 605, fill, 614, 630, 642;
on the Lord's Supper, 647 ; Catechism of,
655.
Creeds: name and definition, 3; authority,
7; use, 8; classification, 9. See Con-
fession.
Crell, 283, 345.
iromwell, 693, 714, 720, 723 ; his Policy,
830 ; towards Baptists, 847 ; towards Quak-
ers, 862, 86S.
Crosby (Thomas), 845.
Crusius (Martin), 50.
Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy, 279.
940
INDEX.
Crypto-Calvinists, 267, 281, 346.
Cumberland Presbyterian Church, 813 ; Con-
fession of, 8 1 5.
Cummins (Bishop), 665.
Cunningham. 685, 637.
Currey, on the Westminster Confession, 789.
Cyprian, against Papal Infallibility, 174.
Cyril Lucar, 54.
Czenger, Confession of, 591.
D.
Daille, 482.
Damasus, Creed of, 395.
Darboy (Archbishop), against Papal Infalli-
bility, 156 ; submits with a mental reserva-
tion, and dies a martyr, 161.
Dathenus, 537.
De Maistre, on Infallibility, 166.
Decrees. See Predestination.
Decretals, pseudo-Isidorian, 180.
De'vay, 589.
Dexter (Henry Martyn), 821, 849, 863.
Discipline, 461.
Dollinger, 88, 146, 153, 164; his writings,
1 93 ; his protest against the Vatican De-
crees, and his excommunication, 195.
Dominicans, 124.
Dorner, on Luther and Melanchthon, 265 ; on
Luther and Reformed Christology, 264,
290, 334; on the Formula of Concord,
322 ; on Zwingli, 383 ; on Calvin, 442.
Dort, Synod of, 478, 512.
Dosithens (Patriarch of Jerusalem), 61.
Douglas (Robert), 747.
Du Moulin, 482.
Duns Scotup, for the Immaculate Conception,
123.
Dupanloup (Bishop), against Papal Infallibil-
ity, 156 ; submits, 162.
E.
Eastern Church Association, 75.
Ebrard, 456, 471, 564, end passim.
Eck, 226, 241.
Edward VL, 596, 613.
Edwardine Articles, 614.
Edwards (Thomas), 797.
Election. See Predestination.
Elizabeth (Queen), 596, 601, 674, 705.
Elizabethan Articles, 615.
Elrington, 662.
Emmons (Dr.), on Congregationalism, 826.
England, Church of, 593, 598. See Anglican
Church, etc.
Episcopacy (English), 604, 667; in the West-
minster Assembly, 732 ; abolished by the
Long Parliament, 719, 734 ; restored, 721 ;
reduced, 736.
Episcopius, 511, 523, 897.
Erasmus, 385.
Erastians, 738.
Erbkam, 840, 867.
Eucharistic Controversies, 279, 326. See
Lord's Supper.
Eusebius, Creed of, 24.
Evangelical Alliance, 915.
F.
Faber, 227.
Farel, 429, 438.
Featley, 733, 852.
Filioque, 26.
Fisher (George P.), 443, 594, 603, 607, 838.
Fisher (the Jesuit), 715,
Fiske (J. 0.), 838.
Fitzgerald (Bishop), votes against Papal In«
fallibility, 158.
Flacian Controversy, 268.
Flacius, 269, 276, 300.
Fletcher (John W.), 884, 899.
Forbes (Bishop), 599.
Formula Consensus Helvetica, 478.
Formula of Concord, 258, 311.
Fox (George), 860, 868.
Foxe (John), 846.
France, Reformation in, 491.
Francis I., 368, 427, 450, 491.
Franciscans, 124.
Frederick III., 392, 532 ; his Confession, 563.
Free Will, denied by Luther and the Formula
of Concord II., 106, 318; Arminian doc-
trine of, 508; Westminster doctrine of,
771 ; Methodist doctrine of, 897.
Free-will Baptists, 857.
Friedberg, 135.
Friedrich, 135, 145, 194, 196.
Friends, society of, 859.
Frommann, 97, 135.
Fuller (Thomas), 658, 707, 708, 709, 741,
753, and passim.
Funck, 273.
G.
Gallican Confession, 490.
Gallicanism and Ultramontanism, 167.
Gardiner, 611, 613.
Gattaker (Thomas), 742.
Geddes (Jenny), 688.
General Assembly of Scotland, adopting the
Westminster Standards* 759.
INDEX.
941
Geneva, 422, 429; Church of, 460; Consen-
sus of, 474.
Gennadi us, 46.
German Empire, founded after the Infallibil-
ity Decree, 160.
Gernler, 478.
Giessen Divines on Christology and Ubiquity,
294.
Gillespie (George), 727, 74=6.
Gilman (Edward W.), on Congregational
Creeds, 839.
Gindely, 565 and passim.
Gomarus, 511.
Good Works, necessity of, 274.
Goodwin (Thomas), 737, 742.
Gouge (William), 756.
Gratry, 153; submits to the Vatican Council
on his death-bed, 161 ; on Honorius, 164.
Greek Church, 43.
Green (J. R.), on Puritanism, 723; on Crom-
well, 831 ; on Whitefield, 902.
Gregory I. against Papal Infallibility, 175.
Gregory XV., 125.
Grindal, 605.
Grotius, 511.
Grynseus, 388.
Guibert (Archbishop), publishes the Vatican
Decrees, 161.
Gtiido de Bres, 504.
Gnizot, on Calvin, 423, 428, 440, 442, 449, 463.
GUI ley (Dr.), 810.
Gurney (Joseph John), 859, 868, 869.
H.
Hades, Controversy on, 296.
Hagenbach, 388, 395, and passim.
Hall (Bishop), 726, 737.
Hallam, on English Articles, 636 ; on Hamp-
ton Court Conference, 708 ; on Laud, 717.
Haller, 365.
Hamilton (Patrick), 673.
Hampton Court Conference, 661, 706.
Hardwick, 592 and passim.
llase (Carl), 89 ; on Infallibility, 172.
Heathen, Salvation of, 382.
Hefele (Bishop), against Papal Infallibility,
156 ; submits, 161 ; on the case of Hono-
rius, 178.
Heidegger (J. H.), 478, 486.
Heidelberg Catechism, 529, 535.
Helvetic Confession, the First, 388 ; the Sec-
ond, 396.
Helvetic Consensus Formula, 477.
Henderson (Alexander), 692, 745.
Henry IV., 491.
VOL. L— O o o
Henry VIII., 595, 600, 605, 611, 613.
Heppe, on Formula of Concord, 337 ; on the
Saxon and Wiirtemberg Confessions, 341 ;
German Eeformed Confessions, 563 and
passim.
Heretical Popes, 176, 178.
Herminjard, 421, 425.
Herzog, on the Waldenses, 568 ; * Real-En-
cykl.,' passim in Literature.
Heshusius, 266, 270, 282.
Hessian Confession, 564.
Hetherington, 689.
Heuitley, on the Apostles' Creed, 19.
Heykamp, 197.
Heylin, 717, 778.
Hicks (Elias), and the Hicksite Quakers, 873.
High-Commission, 717.
Hodge (A. A.), on the Westminster Confes-
sion, 754, 795.
Hodge (Charles), on Infallibility, 170 ; on the
Lord's Supper, 376; on Infant Salvation,
381 ; on the Helvetic Confession, 396; on
Predestination, 455 ; on the Number of th*
Lost and Saved, 795.
Holland, Reformation in, 502.
Hommius, 507, 513.
Honorius (Pope), condemned as a heretic, 178.
Hook (Dean), 717.
Hooker (Richard), 607; on Calvin, 608; on
Baptism, 643 ; on the Lord's Supper, 649 ;
on the Lambeth Articles, 662 ; on Travers,
706 ; on the Lord's Day, 777.
Hooker (Thomas), 820.
Hooper, on Ubiquity, 335 ; corresponds with
Bullinger, 391, 602, 630; refuses to con-
form, 705.
Hosius, 585.
Hottinger (John Jacob), 477.
Hoyle (Joshua), 743.
Huber, 194.
Hubmaier, 842.
Hulsemann, 557.
Hungarian Confession, 591.
Hungary, Reformation in, 589.
Hunnius, 345.
Huntingdon (Lady), 902.
Hus, 565.
Hussites, 566.
Hutchinson (Mrs. Lucy), Memoirs, 701; de-
scription of Charles I., 710.
Hyacinthe (Pere), 194.
Idellette de Buren, 430.
Ignatius, 174.
942
INDEX.
Immaculate Conception, definition of, 108.
Imputation, 484.
Independency and Fellowship, 826.
Independents, 737, 824. See Congregation-
a lists.
Infallibilists, 163, 184.
Infallibility of (Ecumenical Councils, 168; of
the Pope, 150, 164.
Infant Salvation, 378, 381, 794, 898.
Innes, 669, 798, 800.
Innocent III., 176.
InnocentlV., 176.
Innocent X., 103.
Innocent XIII. , 107.
Inopportunists, 153.
Institutes, Calvin's, 447.
Intolerance, 796, 800, 802.
Irenaeus, 1?4.
Irish Articles of Religion, 662, 761; com-
pared with Westminster Confession, 762.
Irving (Edward), on the Scotch Confession,
684; his life and labors, 905.
Irvingites. See Catholic Apostolic Church.
J.
Jacobites, 80.
James I., 604, 606, 617, 697; his character,
706 ; at Hampton Court Conference, 708 ;
on Bible Revision, 709; on Laud, 711.
James II., 724.
Jansen, 103.
Jansenists, Papal Bulls against the, 102 ; in
Holland, 107.
Janus, 134, 164, 195.
Jeremiah II. (Patriarch of Constantinople),
50.
Jerome, 119.
Jerusalem Chamber, 748.
Jesuits, 103, 124, 138, 182.
Jewell (Bishop), 603, 605, 633, 643.
Joan of Kent, 846.
John XXII. , 177.
John, Elector of Saxony, 227 and passim.
Jonas (Justus), 239 ; his Catechism, 655.
Judex, 266.
Justification by Faith, 206, 211, 216, 231, 255,
271, 275, 406.
Kahnis, on the Lord's Supper, 327 ; on the
Two States of Christ, 328 ; on the Reformed
opposition to the Formula of Concord, 334 ;
on Calvin, 442.
Kampschulte, on Calvin, 421, 425, 433, 446,
449, 463.
Keble, 60.
Keenan, Catechism against Infallibility, 183
Kenosis, 294, 323.
Kenrick (Archbishop of Baltimore), 90.
Kenrick (of St. Louis), 144, 153, 156, 163,
172, 187.
Ketteler (Bishop), prostrate before the Pope,
156, 163, 172, 187.
Killen (W. D.), 662, 664.
Knollys (Hansard), 844, 848.
Knox, on the Church of Geneva, 460 ; labors
in England, 602; his life and character,
673; his Confession, 681; his Liturgy,
684 ; views on Sunday observance, 776.
Kollner, on the Formula of Concord, 336.
Koolhaas, 510.
Koornhart, 510.
Krauth (Charles P.), on the Augsburg Con-
fession, 235 ; on Luther's Catechism, 251 ;
on the Formula of Concord, 318, 337,
340.
La Place, 479, 484.
Lainez, 182,194.
Lambeth Articles, 658.
Langen, 164.
Lasco. See Laski.
Laski (k Lasco), 565, 583.
Larimer, 649.
Laud (Archbishop), 607, 617, 664, 688; his
character and administration, 709, 711 ; on
the Westminster Assembly, 732.
Launoy, 108, 123.
Laurence (Bishop), on the Articles of the
Church of England, 634, 637.
Lawrence (Edward A.), 835, 838.
Lecky (W. E. H.), 796, 799, 801.
Lefevre, 492.
Leighton, 717.
Leipzig Interim, 299 ; Colloquy, 558.
Leo Judse, 388.
LeoX., 160.
Liberius, 177.
Liberty, Religious, 465, 800, 848, 849.
Light, the inner, 868.
Lightfoot (John), 727, 739, 743, 755.
Lipomani, 585.
Liturgical Standards of Rome, 189.
Lohe, on Luther's Catechism, 251.
Lord's Day, doctrine of the, 776.
Lord's Supper, Luther's doctrine, 232, 260,
316, 325, 347, 645 ; Melanchthon's, 232,
241,263; Zwingli's, 374 ; Bullinger's,415;
Bucer's, 528; Calvin's, 281, 376, 455;
INDEX.
943
Cranmer's, 601, 647; words of institution
explained, 327, 374 r Consensus of Zurich,
471; Tetrapolitan Confession, 528; Hei-
delberg Catechism, 535, 543; Consensus
of Sendorair, 587; Hungarian Confession, |
591; Anglican Articles, 601, 645; Irish!
Articles and Westminster Confession, 765 ; '
Westminster doctrine of, 775.
Lorimer, 129, 131, 683.
Loudun, Synod of, 483, 498.
Louis XIV., 104, 105, 491, 498.
Loyola, 491.
Loyson, 194.
Lucas of Prague, 568.
Luther, his character and influence, 214; re-
lation to the Augsburg Confession, 228;
his Catechisms, 245; on Confession and
Absolution, 248 ; Articles of Smalcald,
253 ; on Justification by Faith, 255 ; on
Popery, the Mass, Purgatory, 255 ; on the
Lord's Supper, 256 ; relation to Melanch-
thon, 214, 259, 265; relation to Zwingli,
212, 260 ; against Antinomianism, 278 ; on
the Ubiquity of Christ's Body, 287 ; on the
Descent into Hades, 297; on Free-will and |
Predestination, 215, 303; on Damnation1
of the Heathen, 382 ; Conduct towards the (
Swiss, 389 ; Judgment on Calvin, 430 ;
compared with Calvin, 438; influence on
the English Reformation, 600. j
Lutheran Creeds, 220.
Lutheranism and Reform, 213.
M.
Macaulay, on English Reformation, 604, 605 ;
on Charles I., 710 ; on Cromwell, 720.
Macleod (Norman), on Chalmers, 696.
M'Crie (Jr.), on the Westminster Assembly,
752; on the Westminster Standards, 76 1,785. '
M'Crie (Thomas), 669, 673, 675, 676, 686.
Major, 275.
Majoristic Controversy, 274.
Manning (Cardinal), 90, 135, 148, 152, 153;
defines Infallibility, 167; on History, 171;
on Honorius, 186.
Manuel, 365.
Manutius, 91.
Marbach, 305.
Marburg, Conference of, 212, 228.
Maret (Bishop), against Infallibility, 156, 163;
retracts, 161.
Margaret (Queen of Navarre), 491.
Mnronites, 80.
Marot, 492.
Marsden (J. B.), on Westminster Conf., 789.
Marshall (Stephen), 743.
Mary, Immaculate Conception of, 108.
Mary Stuart, 671, 678.
Mary Tudor, 596.
Masson, 690, 693, 734, 740, and passim.
Mather (Cotton), 849.
Matthews (G. D.), 811.
Maulbronn, Colloquy of, 288; Formula of,
310.
Maurice, Elector of Saxony, 299.
Maurice, Prince of Orange, 514.
Maximilian II., 576, 579, 590.
Megander, 389.
Melanchthon, 50; his character, 214, 261;
Augsburg Confession, 225 ; Apology of the
Augsburg Confession, 243 ; on Episcopacy
and Popery, 254 ; relation to Luther, 214,
259 ; changes his doctrine of Free-will,
262; on the Lord's Supper, 263; on the
Necessity of Good Works, 276; against
Ubiquity, 288 ; on the Descent into Hades,
297 ; on the Adiaphora, 300 ; silenced but
not destroyed, 339 ; his Confessio Saxoni-
ca, 341 ; friendship with Calvin, 431 ; re-
lation to the Reformed Church, 525 j m-
fluence in England, 600.
Melville (Andrew), 684.
Melville (James), 677, 679.
Menno Simons, 842.
Mennonites, 842.
Methodism and Methodists, 882.
Methodist Creeds, 890.
Metrophanes Critopulus, 52.
Michaud, 161.
Michelet, on Calvin, 441.
Michelis, 194, 196.
Mill (Walter), 673.
Millenary Petition, 707.
Milner, 90.
Milton, on the Waldenses, 571 ; on the Sol-
emn League and Covenant, 693; on the
Westminster Assembly, 729 ; against Epis-
copacy, 734; against Presbytery, 737; on
Religious Toleration, 848 ; on Roger Will-
iams, 852.
Missal, Roman, 189.
Mitchell (Alex. F.), 727, 754, 770, 775.
Mogilas, 58.
Mohler, 88, 183, and passim.
Mohnike, 97.
Molinseus, 482.
Monophysites, 80.
Montalembert, opposes the erection of an idol
on the Vatican, 153 ; dies during the Vati-
can Council, 161.
944
INDEX.
Montauban, 485.
Moravians, 567, 874.
More (Sir Thomas), 749.
Morlin, 272.
Mornay (Da Plessis), 479.
Mouravieff, 51, 58, 59, 69, 75.
Mozley, 638, 640.
Miihlhausen, Confession of, 887.
Mttnzer (Thomas), 842.
Myconius (Friedrich), 387.
Myconius (Oswald), 387.
N.
Nantes, Edict of, 498.
Napoleon I., 499.
Napoleon III., 139, 160.
Nassau, Confession of, 564.
Nast (William), 882, 891.
National Covenant, 686.
Neal (Daniel), 701, 797, and passim.
Nestorians, 79.
Nevin, on the Apostles' Creed, 16, 23 ; on the
Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper,
456 ; on the Heidelberg Catechism, 541.
New England, 825.
Newman (J. H.), on Papal Infallibility, 154 ;
Tract No. 90, 599.
Nicaea, Council of, 25.
Nicene Creed, 24.
Niemeyer, 355 and passim.
Nitchmann, 875, 886.
Nitzsch, 89.
Noailles, 105, 107.
Non-Jurors, 74.
Nowell's Catechism, 657.
Nye (Philip), 737, 743.
O.
Oberlin Declaration, 839.
(Ecolampadius, 374, 386.
(Ecumenical Councils against Papal Infallibil-
ity, 173, 179 ; Creeds, 12, 210.
Old Catholics in Holland, 107; in Germany
and Switzerland, 191, 198.
Olevianus, 534.
Olivetan, 492.
Original Sin, Controversy on, 268 ; Zwingli's
view, 377 ; Methodist view, 897.
Orthodox Confession of Mogilas, 59.
Osgood (Howard), 853.
Osiander, 272.
Osiandric Controversy, 271.
Otterbein, 887.
Overberg, against Infallibility, 183.
Owen (John), 830.
P.
Palacky, 565 and passim.
Palatinate Catechism, 529,
Pallavicini, 91,1)6.
Palmer (Herbert), 744.
Palmer (Hay), 838.
Pare (George Van), 846.
Parker (Archbishop), 616.
Parkhurst, 605.
Parliament, action on the Westminster Con-
fession, 758.
Parthenius, 59.
Passaglia, 108.
Paul III., 93.
Paul IV., 585.
Paul V., 125.
Pax Dissidentium, 585.
Pelagius, on the Sinlessness of Mary, 120 j
on Infant Salvation, 379.
Pelargus, 556.
Penn (William), 861,868.
Perfectionism, 900.
Perkins (William), 659.
Perrone, 89, 108, 123, 126, 127, 178.
Perry, 650.
Pestalozzi, 388, 395.
Peter, his Primacy, 185.
Peter Martyr, 477.
Peucer, 282, 283.
Pfeffinger, 270.
Philaret, Catechism of, 71.
Philip II., 503.
Philip of Hesse, 226, 234, and passim.
Philippists, 267.
Pighius, 474.
Pilgrim Fathers, 782, 827.
Pinkerton, on Russia, 70.
Pius IV., 91, 96, 100.
Pius V., 101,124, 189.
Pius IX. defines the dogma of the Immacu-
late Conception of Mary, 108; issues the
Papal Syllabus, 128 ; convenes the Vatican
Council, 136; controls its proceedings, 142;
proclaims the dogma on the Catholic Faith,
150 ; believes in his Personal Infallibility,
and exerts his influence in favor of this
dogma, 152; receives the deputation of
anti-Infallibilists and declines their request,
157; proclaims the dogma of Papal Ab-
solutism and Infallibility, 158; excommu-
nicates the Old Catholics, 200.
Placeus, 479, 485, 488.
Planck, on Andrse, 308; on the FonmilM of
Concord, 336.
INDEX.
945
i'laton (Metropolitan of Moscow), 71.
Pletho, 46.
Plitt (Hermann), 872.
Plymouth Brethren, 910.
Poland, Keformation in, 581.
Ponet, 606.
Pope (W. B.), 892, 898, 900, 901.
Popery, 158. See Pius IX., Syllabus, Infal-
libility, Vatican Decrees.
Port Royal, 103.
Predestination, controversy on, 305 ; Luther-
an doctrine, 329, 34:7; Zwingli's, 370 ; Cal-
vin's, 451, 474 ; Amyraut's, 480; Anglican
doctrine, 633 ; Irish Articles and Westmin-
ster Confession, 762, 768, 791 ; opposed by
Wesley and the Arminian Methodists, 895 ;
adopted by Whitefield, 901 ; and the Welsh
Methodists, 903.
Presbyterian Polity, 462, 737, 739.
Presbyterian "Reunion, 809.
Presbyterianism in England, 734, 736.
Presbyterians in Scotland, 685 ; persecuted,
798 ; in America, 804.
Preterition, 791.
Profession of the Tridentine Faith, 96.
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United
States, 650.
Protestantism, 203 ; principles of, 206 ; com-
pared with Romanism, 207.
Prynne, 717.
Pseudo-Isidor, 180.
Psychopannychia, 428.
Puritans and Puritanism, 701, 723.
Pusey (Dr.), 108, 716.
Q.
Quakers, 859.
Quesnel, 105.
Quick, 490, 493.
Quint (Alonzo H.), 829, 835, 838.
Quirinus, Letters of, 135, 145, 157, 159.
R.
RadziwiU, 582.
Randall (Benjamin), 858.
Rauke, on the Augsburg Confession, 234 ; on
Luther's Catechism, 251.
Rauscher votes against Papal Infallibility,
156 ; submits, 160, 196.
Redford (Dr.), 834.
Reformation, 204; in Geneva, 444; in France,
491 ; in Holland, 502 ; in Bohemia, 565 ;
in Poland, 581 ; in Hungary, 589 ; in Eng-
land, 593.
Reformed, 211, 256, 356, 358,
Reformed Churches compared with the Lu-
theran, 212.
Reformed Confessions, 354.
Reformed Episcopal Church, 665.
Reformed Presbyterian Church, 812.
Regular Baptists. See Baptists.
Reinkens, 164, 191, 194; elected Bishop of
the Old Catholics, 197 ; pleads for the Bi-
ble in the Old Catholic Congress of Con-
stance, 199 ; extends greetings to the Gen-
eral Conference of the Evangelical Alliance,
200 ; answers the Papal Excommunication,
201.
Renan, on Calvin, 442.
Renee, Duchess of Ferrara, 428.
Repetitio Anhaltina, 563.
Reprobation, 770, 792. See Predestination.
Restoration (of the Stuarts and Episcopacy),
720.
Reunion of Old and New School Presbyteri-
an Churches, 809.
Reusch, 194.
Revision of the Bible, 749.
Revision of the English Bible (by King
James), 709.
Revolution of 1688, 724.
Reynolds (Dr. Edward), 744, 756, 772.
Reynolds (Dr. John), 707.
Riccio (Bishop), votes against Papal Infalli-
bility, 158.
Richelieu, 481.
Ridley (Bishop), 601, 630, 649.
Rigg (James H.), 882, 886, 888.
Ripley (George), reports the thunder-storm
in St. Peter's at the Proclamation of the
Papal Infallibility Decree, 159.
Ritualism of Laud, 714.
Rivet, 482, 485.
Robinson (John), 820, 827.
Rogers (Thomas), on English Articles, 639;
Roman Catechism, 100.
Roman Catholic Church, on persecution, 802.
Romanism and Catholicism, 83.
Romanism and Protestantism, 207.
Rothe, Christology, 33.
Rous (Francis), 744.
Rudolph II., 580, 590.
Rufmus, on the Apostles' Creed, 22.
Russian Church, 68, 75, 77.
Russian Schismatics, 52.
Rutherford (Samuel), 747.
S.
Sabbath. See Lord's Day.
Sacrament. See Baptism and Lord's Supper.
946
INDEX,
Sadeel, 354, 493.
Saliger (John), 285,
Sarpi, 91,03, 9G.
Saumur, 479.
Savoy Conference, 721.
Savoy Declaration, 829.
Saxon Articles of Visitation, 345.
Saxon Confession, 346.
Saybrook Platform, 837.
Schleiermacher, 451, 880.
Schneckenburger, 883.
Schulte, 194.
Schwabach Articles, 228.
Schwarzenberg votes against Papal Infallibil-
ity, 158 ; submits, 160, 196.
Schweinitz (Bishop Edmund de), 824.
Schweizer (Alexander), 451, 477, 483.
Schwenkfeld (Caspar von), 867.
Schyn (Hermann), 841, 843, 844.
Scotch Confession of Faith, 680.
Scotch Presbyterian Church, 694.
Scotists, 124.
Scotland, Heformation of, 669.
Scriptures and Tradition, 206, 211, 216.
Seaman (Lazarus), 744, 770.
Seekers, 848, 851.
Selden (John), 730, 745.
Semisch, on the Apostles' Creed, 15.
Sendomir, Consensus of, 586.
Seneca, on Mercy, edited by Calvin, 424.
Servetus, 428, 464.
Sewel (William), 859.
Shakespere, 749 and passim.
Shedd (W. G. T.), 835.
Sigismimd Augustus II. , 582.
Sigismund Confession, 555.
Sigmund III., 585.
Sixtus V., 182.
Smalcald, Articles of, 253.
Smectymnuans, 736.
Smith (Henry B.), 108, 810.
Solemn League and Covenant, 690.
Spangenberg (Bishop), 874, 876, 879, 881, 886.
Spanheim, 482.
Speil,89, 113.
Stahelin, on Calvin, 421, 425, 448, 602.
Stahl, on Ubiquity, 324.
Stancarus (Francesco), 273.
Stanley (Dean), 688, 723, 749, 767; on the
Westminster Standards, 789.
Star-Chamber, 717.
States of Humiliation and Exaltation, Luther-
an and Reformed views of, 323, 328 ; Form-
ula of Concord, 306.
Stevens (Abel), 882, 884,, 902.
Stonghton (John), 690, 693, 720, 722, 740,
748 ; on Creeds, 833.
Stratford (Earl of), 664.
Strasburg, Reformation of, 304; Confession
of, 526.
Strossmayer (Bishop), in the Vatican Coun-
cil, 14f>, 149.
Stuart, Dynasty of, 671.
Sunday in England, 777.
Swabian and Saxon Formula, 310.
Sylburg, 537.
Syllabus, the Papal, 128.
Symbols. See Creeds.
Syncretism and Syncretistic Controversy, 349.
Synergism, 262, 264.
Synergistic Controversy, 270.
T.
Tangermann, 196,
Taylor (Jeremy), on the Athanasian Creed,
40 ; on Toleration, 803.
Tetrapolitan Confession, 526.
Thiers, 499.
Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, 615.
Thomasius, on the Formula of Concord, 339.
Thomas Aquinas, against the Immaculate
Conception, 122 ; in favor of Papal Infalli-
bility, 181.
Thomists, 124.
Thompson (Joseph P.), 838.
Thorn, Colloquy of, 560 ; Declaration of, 562.
Thnanus (De Thou), 490.
Timann, 26(>.
Toleration and Intolerance, 463, 466, 704,
725, 848, 849.
Torgau Articles, 229.
Torgau Book, 310.
Torquemada, 108.
Traheron, 630 ; on the Lord's Supper, 647.
Travers (Walter), 735.
Trent, Canons and Decrees of, 91.
Tridentine Faith, 96.
Triers, 830.
Trinity, doctrine of, 37.
Tubingen Divines, on Christology and Ubiq-
uity, 294.
Tuckney (Dr.), 741, 760, 786.
Turretin (Francis), 478, 485.
Twisse (William), 740, 752.
Tyerman, 882 and passim.
Tyndale, 613, 673, 704.
U.
Ubiquitarian Controversy, 285.
Ubiquity of Christ's Body, 285, 322, 325, 348,
INDEX.
947
Ullmann, on the Heidelberg Catechism, 551.
Ultramontanism and Gallicanism, 167.
Underbill (Kdward Bean), 844, 853.
Uniformity, Act of, 607.
Union, Evangelical, 222, 237, 555, 586.
Unitas Fratrum. See Moravians.
United Presbyterian Church, 812.
Universalism of Amyraut, 480.
Urban VIII., 189, 190.
Ursinus, on the Formula of Concord, 333;
author of the Heidelberg Catechism, 533.
Ussher (Archbishop), 605, 663, 726, 733, 736,
761.
Utraquists, 566.
V.
Vatican Council, 134, 168.
Vatican Decrees, 147.
Vergerius, 253, 584.
Vigilius, 177.
Vines (Eichard), 745.
W.
Waldenses, 568.
Waldensian Catechism, 574.
Wallis (John), 787, 790.
Wandsworth Presbytery, 735.
Warren (W, F.), 882, 891, 895.
Washburn (E. A.), on the Anglican Church,
609.
Waterland, on the Athanasian Creed, 34, 36,
37; on the Thirty-nine Articles, 616.
Waterlanders, 843.
Watson (Richard), 882.
Wayland (Francis), 845.
Welsh Calvinistic Methodists, 903.
Wesley (Charles), 883, 887, 895, 896.
Wesley (John), 796, 883, 890 ; on the Thirty-
nine Articles, 893; on Arminianism, 894;
on Predestination, 895 ; on the Witness of
the Spirit, 899 ; on Perfectionism, 900 ; re-
lation to Whitefield, 901.
Wesleyans. See Methodists.
Westminster Assembly of Divines, 727.
Westminster Catechisms, 783.
Westminster Confession, on Infant Salvation,
380, 795 ; on Baptism and Election, 641 ;
Origin and History of, 753 ; Analysis of,
760 ; doctrine of Predestination, 768, 791 ;
doctrine of the Lord's Day, 776 ; Criticism
of, 788 ; Intolerance of, 796 ; American
Revision of, 806.
Westphal, 280, 473.
Westphalian Treaty, 242.
Whedon (D. D.), 882, 893 ; on Infant Salv*
tion, 898.
Whitaker (William), 659.
White (Bishop), 42, 651, 653, 666.
White (John), 741.
Whitefield (George), 796, 883, 901.
Whitgift (Archbishop), 605, 618, 659, 706,
708, 735.
Wigand, 266, 270.
Wigglesworth (Michael), on Infant Damna-
tion, 794.
William III., 724.
Williams (Roger), 849.
Wimpina, 227.
Wiseman, 90.
Wishart (George), 673.
Witness of the Spirit, Methodist doctrine of,
899.
Wladislaus IV., 560.
Wolmar, 492.
Works. See Good Works.
Wurteraberg Confession, 344, 627.
Wycliffe, 568, 704.
Wyttenbach, 385.
Y.
Young (Thomas), 745.
Zanchi, 305.
Zeller, 371.
Zephyrinus, 177.
Zinzendorf, 874, 876.
Ziska, 566.
Zockler, on the Apostles' Creed, 20; on the
Augsburg Confession, 237, 241.
Zosimus, 177.
Zurich Consensus, 471.
Zurich Letters, 391, 604, 630, 632.
Zwingli, at Marburg, 212; his character and
importance, 360 ; judgment on Luther,
362; his Articles or Conclusions, 363;
Theses of Berne, 365 ; Confession of Faith
to Charles V., 366; to Francis I., 368;
doctrine of Providence and Predestination,
370; of the Sacraments, 372 ; of the Lord's
Supper, 374 ; of Original Sin, 377 ; Salva-
tion of Infants, 378 ; Salvation of the Hea-
then, 382.
Zwinglian Confessions, 361.
THB END OF VOL. I.
124656